There are so many inconsistencies in Anna Ardin’s accusation of sexual assault against Julian Assange. But the key question which leaps out at me – and which strangely I have not seen asked anywhere else – is this:

Why did Anna Ardin not warn Sofia Wilen?

On 16 August, Julian Assange had sex with Sofia Wilen. Sofia had become known in the Swedish group around Assange for the shocking pink cashmere sweater she had worn in the front row of Assange’s press conference. Anna Ardin knew Assange was planning to have sex with Sofia Wilen. On 17 August, Ardin texted a friend who was looking for Assange:

“He’s not here. He’s planned to have sex with the cashmere girl every evening, but not made it. Maybe he finally found time yesterday?”

Yet Ardin later testified that just three days earlier, on 13 August, she had been sexually assaulted by Assange; an assault so serious she was willing to try (with great success) to ruin Julian Assange’s entire life. She was also to state that this assault involved enforced unprotected sex and she was concerned about HIV.

If Ardin really believed that on 13 August Assange had forced unprotected sex on her and this could have transmitted HIV, why did she make no attempt to warn Sofia Wilen that Wilen was in danger of her life? And why was Ardin discussing with Assange his desire for sex with Wilen, and texting about it to friends, with no evident disapproval or discouragement?

Ardin had Wilen’s contact details and indeed had organised her registration for the press conference. She could have warned her. But she didn’t.

Let us fit that into a very brief survey of the whole Ardin/Assange relationship. .

11 August: Assange arrives in Stockholm for a press conference organised by a branch of the Social Democratic Party.
Anna Ardin has offered her one bed flat for him to stay in as she will be away.

13 August: Ardin comes back early. She has dinner with Assange and they have consensual sex, on the first day of meeting. Ardin subsequently alleges this turned into assault by surreptitious mutilation of the condom.

14 August: Anna volunteers to act as Julian’s press secretary. She sits next to him on the dais at his press conference. Assange meets Sofia Wilen there.

‘Julian wants to go to a crayfish party, anyone have a couple of available seats tonight or tomorrow? #fb’

This attempt to find a crayfish party fails, so Ardin organises one herself for him, in a garden outside her flat. Anna and Julian seem good together. One guest hears Anna rib Assange that she thought “you had dumped me” when he got up from bed early that morning. Another offers to Anna that Julian can leave her flat and come stay with them. She replies:
“He can stay with me.”

Julian and Anna, according to both their police testimonies, sleep again in the same single bed, and continue to do so for the next few days. Assange tells police they continue to have sex; Anna tells police they do not. That evening, Anna and Julian go together to, and leave together from, a dinner with the leadership of the Pirate Party. They again sleep in the same bed.

16 August: Julian goes to have sex with Sofia Wilen: Ardin does not warn her of potential sexual assault.
Another friend offers Anna to take over housing Julian. Anna again refuses.

20 August: After Sofia Wilen contacts her to say she is worried about STD’s including HIV after unprotected sex with Julian, Anna takes her to see Anna’s friend, fellow Social Democrat member, former colleague on the same ballot in a council election, and campaigning feminist police officer, Irmeli Krans. Ardin tells Wilen the police can compel Assange to take an HIV test. Ardin sits in throughout Wilen’s unrecorded – in breach of procedure – police interview. Krans prepares a statement accusing Assange of rape. Wilen refuses to sign it.

21 August Having heard Wilen’s interview and Krans’ statement from it, Ardin makes her own police statement alleging Assange has surreptiously had unprotected sex with her eight days previously.

Some days later: Ardin produces a broken condom to the police as evidence; but a forensic examination finds no traces of Assange’s – or anyone else’s – DNA on it, and indeed it is apparently unused.

No witness has come forward to say that Ardin complained of sexual assault by Assange before Wilen’s Ardin-arranged interview with Krans – and Wilen came forward not to complain of an assault, but enquire about STDs. Wilen refused to sign the statement alleging rape, which was drawn up by Ardin’s friend Krans in Ardin’s presence.

It is therefore plain that one of two things happened:

Either

Ardin was sexually assaulted with unprotected sex, but failed to warn Wilen when she knew Assange was going to see her in hope of sex.

Ardin also continued to host Assange, help him, appear in public and private with him, act as his press secretary, and sleep in the same bed with him, refusing repeated offers to accommodate him elsewhere, all after he assaulted her.

Or

Ardin wanted sex with Assange – from whatever motive.. She “unexpectedly” returned home early after offering him the use of her one bed flat while she was away. By her own admission, she had consensual sex with him, within hours of meeting him.

She discussed with Assange his desire for sex with Wilen, and appears at least not to have been discouraging. Hearing of Wilen’s concern about HIV after unprotected sex, she took Wilen to her campaigning feminist friend, policewoman Irmeli Krans, in order to twist Wilen’s story into a sexual assault – very easy given Sweden’s astonishing “second-wave feminism” rape laws. Wilen refused to sign.

Ardin then made up her own story of sexual assault. As so many friends knew she was having sex with Assange, she could not claim non-consensual sex. So she manufactured her story to fit in with Wilen’s concerns by alleging the affair of the torn condom. But the torn condom she produced has no trace of Assange on it.

Conclusion

I have no difficulty in saying that I firmly believe Ardin to be a liar. For her story to be true involves acceptance of behaviour which is, in the literal sense, incredible.

Ardin’s story is of course incredibly weak, but that does not matter. Firstly, you were never supposed to see all this detail. Rape trials in Sweden are held entirely in secret. There is no jury, and the government appointed judge is flanked by assessors appointed directly by political parties. If Assange goes to Sweden, he will disappear into jail, the trial will be secret, and the next thing you will hear is that he is guilty and a rapist.

Secondly, of course, it does not matter the evidence is so weak, as just to cry rape is to tarnish a man’s reputation forever. Anna Ardin has already succeeded in ruining much of the work and life of Assange. The details of the story being pathetic is unimportant.

By crying rape, politically correct opinion falls in behind the line that it is wrong even to look at the evidence. If you are not allowed to know who the accuser is, how can you find out that she worked with CIA-funded anti-Castro groups in Havana and Miami?

Finally, to those useful idiots who claim that the way to test these matters is in court, I would say of course, you are right, we should trust the state always, fit-ups never happen, and we should absolutely condemn the disgraceful behaviour of those who campaigned for the Birmingham Six.

1,951 Comments

It seems like you don’t understand the High Court ruling:“In England and Wales, a decision to charge is taken at a very early stage: there can be no doubt that if what Mr Assange had done had been done in England and Wales, he would have been charged and thus criminal proceedings would have been commenced.

In our view therefor, Mr Assange fails on the facts on this issues.”

Mr Assange is “considered charged”. And it is a very important finding for the court. If Mr Assange was not “considered charged” he could not have been extradited.

You have some difficulties in understanding Swedish legal terms as well. Read this line a couple of times from the Prosecution Authorities web site:

If after reading you have any problems I will help you to understand if you can avoid sentences like “At this stage the technical details of what “charged” means are a masturbation with words.” That you don’t understand is evident. It was very important indeed for both the Magistrates’ and High Court.

There is no decision as under Swedish law to “charge”. The Swedish authorities have deliberately played with the differences in concepts and terminology to mislead the UK courts and international opinion.

He can only be charged as you well know after “questioning”, which is what he is wanted for and can be done and should have been done two years ago in the UK. This is such a shitty case that has no chance of going the mile in any civilized country.

I take strong exception to you calling people liars as you have done with Mr. Murray. You also insinuate that my understanding of Swedish legal terminology is wanting which is pure bollocks. I have previously indicated that your source on the Anna Ardin twitter messages was via Flashback and the police report via your ex wife who was a press spokesman at the migration board. I challenge you and all persons on this blog as well as Flashback to look into and specify your source of funding and amounts involved for your SAMTYCKE website. You most definitely have an agenda in profiling yourself for financial and other gain in this Assange case.

I urge that you stop your nonsense. Wikileaks is a serious international issue which people like youself and the Swedish government have turned into a “condom issue”. Not surprising given Swedens double standards in centuries of history. though.

These two cartoons about how Julian Assange was set up are now presented chronologically. People in Sweden I have been in contact with think the whole condom affair makes Sweden the laughing-stock of the world. If only that were true. Unfortunately the truth about what happened in Sweden has not yet made the Zionist-funded press in this country. Please watch and distribute.

Rico Santin, Sweden is not yet being laughed at because of the condom issue because, apart from Assange supporters and those who follow blogs like this are the only ones who know about it. The UK media have been unbelievably quiet on this issue probably in case justice is done.

“There is no decision as under Swedish law to “charge”. The Swedish authorities have deliberately played with the differences in concepts and terminology to mislead the UK courts and international opinion.

He can only be charged as you well know after “questioning”, which is what he is wanted for and can be done and should have been done two years ago in the UK. This is such a shitty case that has no chance of going the mile in any civilized country.”

“I take strong exception to you calling people liars as you have done with Mr. Murray. You also insinuate that my understanding of Swedish legal terminology is wanting which is pure bollocks.”

It is obvious that you are confused about the criminal procedure in Sweden. I say it again. There is no formal decision to charge in the Swedish criminal procedure.

According to Marianne Ny in her 4 February 2011 statement: “According to Swedish law, a formal decision to indict may not be taken at the stage that the criminal process is currently at. Julian Assange’s case is currently at the stage of “preliminary investigation”. It will only be concluded when Julian Assange is surrendered to Sweden and has been interrogated.”

Charge and indict are not the same thing.

“I have previously indicated that your source on the Anna Ardin twitter messages was via Flashback and the police report via your ex wife who was a press spokesman at the migration board.”

Instead of making silly claims why don’t you for once support your claims with facts. You can easily prove to anybody that I might have taken the Anna Ardin twitter messages from Flashback if they exist on Flashback prior to me writing about them. Where on Flashback are the Anna Ardin twitter messages?

I know where I got the police report from. Why don’t you say I got it from my CIA drop box. Or from my SÄPO cousin.

(Moderator. You can take away previous post since there are errors in formatting. This comment can be wiped to. Sorry for the trouble) [Mod/Jon – done].

since you said earlier you are a businessman, are you familiar with the ins and outs of looking up business records such as registrations, tax filings and political donations?

In some local communitites in Europe, even individual tax records are available to the public – so how is it in Sweden or Stockholm? There is a curious mixture of privacy versus openness through “Freedom of Information”, so it could well be that quite a lot could be discovered if anyone (journalists?) made an effort to investigate.

On the other hand, I read that donations to political parties do not have to be declared, since, acording to former Justice Minister Beatrice Ask, “People must be allowed in a free country to support different parties and organisations without revealing how they vote”. Arguably, that’s a non-sequitur.

Another source for such groups is the funding made by the Foreign Office – “Utrikesdepartementet” (UD), through SIDA, Forum Syd, etc. Do they produce detailed budget and activity reports that list the groups they support?

Looking up the web sites records at loopia.se, one finds many of these are registered by general web hosting providers in Sweden, so if someone would need to request “Owner and Administrative Contact information” for the particular sites from the given provider by email.

It would be rather revealing to find out who may be providing funding to some of these groups and web sites with political activist agendas. Might quieten them down too…

Also, aren’t there Church taxes as in Germany, Switzerland etc. collected by the state, and funding to political parties once they reach a certain percentage of the vote or elected candidates?

Has anyone figured out the overlap of politics and religion in Sweden, as evidenced by such groups as the “Broderskapsrörelsen” – the “Christian Social Democrats Brotherhood movement”?
How does this all work? Do they campaign with policies or beliefs?
Who funds them?

Further recipients of funding from the Swedish Foreign Office (UD) though SIDA are various University departments for projects abroad, such as the Minor Field Studies at Uppsula Uni. which supported AA’s time in Cuba. SIDA is said to be like USAID.

The Faculty of Law, Lund University, has been provided with financial support by SIDA to manage since the late 1990s an extensive programme entitled “Strengthening Legal Education in Vietnam”. The name that appears with this is Dr. Christoffer Wong, assistant prof. — Heard of him recently?

SIDA also sponsors programs at the Department of Sociology of Law at Lund University. One also comes across the beneficence of the Wallenbergs:

“According to Marianne Ny in her 4 February 2011 statement: “According to Swedish law, a formal decision to indict may not be taken at the stage that the criminal process is currently at. Julian Assange’s case is currently at the stage of “preliminary investigation”. It will only be concluded when Julian Assange is surrendered to Sweden and has been interrogated.”

So legally he has NOT BEEN CHARGED, correct Goran. The bitch can do her preliminary investigation at the Equador Embassy as has been done previously in many other much more serious cases involving murder and millions of pounds of fraud, eg. TRUSTOR case involving Lord Moynihan.

Rico, I found some comments I think you’ll enjoy on Goran’s post “Swedish Prosecutor General confirms Julian Assange is charged” about his insistence that Assange’s “charging” happened at 16:11 on 20 August 2010:

“So Marianne Ny managed to charge Julian Assange before she even took up the case? Or the on-duty prosecutor managed to charge Julian Assange before either of the women had made their statements?

Oh. Wait… at what point of the process does Julian Assange get to tell his side of the story? Would that be after he’s been charged then? Or is it that he doesn’t actually need to be asked about what happened with Sophie Wilen at all (or maybe he can tell the police that at the trial, yes?)

Oh. No, I get it now. We’ve worked out the exact time he’s been charged – that’s 4.11pm on 20th August 2010, right? – So, that’s when the preliminary investigation ended, yes? Professor Wong explains that:

“a person is formally charged – through an indictment – at a
relatively late stage of the process. As pointed out above, this takes
place when the preliminary investigation is to terminate.”

So the preliminary investigation ended at 4.11pm 20th August 2010, correct? That would be before they started talking to Linda Wassgren, yes? Or how many minutes after (they started talking to Linda Wassgren was Assange charged, I mean)? No, wait – Presumably the women had to spend some time in the waiting room, right? So, that counts as the preliminary investigation… and the charging at 4.11pm 20th August 2010 would be at the point they stepped up to the front desk, yes? (I’m guessing here, so help me out…)

Gosh, this is confusing.

****

Sorry, but it was this bit by Karin Rosinder that got me confused:

“Some of the misunderstandings in this case due to the differences
between our legal systems, which – oversimplified – in British law
“charges” in a relatively early stage of the process and where the
Pre-action then begins. In Sweden we do the opposite…”

August 20th 2010 at 4.11pm seems pretty early in the whole process to me, but in Sweden you call that ‘relatively late’?

In fact, in the UK they bring charges at an even later stage than in Sweden’s process – they actually wait until after questioning the suspect. However, they are trying out a few innovations in this particular case to bring their judicial process more in line with the cosmopolitan, European approach. Goes like this:

Goran doesn’t understand sarcasm. That’s rather odd for someone who claims to understand the subtle complexities of language, indeed languages – all of them, Swedish and English too – better than Supreme Courts can.

Personally, I hope Goran continues his campaign to convince the world that Julian Assange has in fact been “charged”. With it, Goran is single-handedly doing more to show how badly the Swedish judicial process works in practice (or, at least, how badly it’s working in this particular case) than anyone else.

The more Goran pushes this ridiculous line, the more everyone else is questioning what the hell is really going on. Well done, Goran! – You have no idea how much you are helping build public support for Assange’s asylum from political and/or prosecutorial persecution.

indeed. My subtle ironic remarks fly completely under the radar,
such as when I remarked on “those who wish to infer the meaning of words simply from their usage”, which was an oblique reference to the “divination” of the definitions of words from the analysis of some sentences used by Judge Riddle to square a circle

Looks like your post is simply quoting 3 different comments, not your own words, right? Some of the earlier comments there had me cracking up, so your hopes may have some good prospects. When is the next Fringe Comedy Festival?

It is just rather hard to parse. So then the line “Gosh, this is confusing.” is not even your words. ok.

Perhaps if this were to develop a whole lot further, bringing the Swedish judicial process into widespread disrepute or ridicule, might not a certain prosecutor become subject to some sort of contempt or treason charges?

Anyway, in a way this leads me back to the point where I was making rhetorical questions to demonstrate how the system one is up against operates, which those in the system know how to play, having powers, resources and time stacked in their favour. So that suggests thinking outside the normal formal procedures and exploring other ways that influence may be applied on such situations.

The value of such a list of potential charges of prosecutorial misconduct lies more in the court of public opinion. On the English language side, the start of that is to have a well written translation together with commentary by reputable experts. So I had hoped to encourage a higher standard of citation and translation of such items spotted on flashback, so that readers are well informed, especially any such as Craig so his next piece isn’t shot down in wrong details.

Then, once informed, be creative! Use humour, poetry, satire. Write a play, film a video, program a game, hold a mock trial in public, and so on.

Further, take a look at the many instances in politics and government and business etc. where office holders have had their position made untenable in the public eye (and that is not even considering the dirty-tricks department, which I am by no means advocating). Often it is something small which can trip them up. However, even there owning a tabloid press or two full of hungry journos and having PIs on retainer brings a big advantage, as does having organised groups aligned to certain causes which can be co-opted to an agenda and say a social media campaign (such as prataomdet).

There seem to be considerable asymmetries in organisation tendencies and willingness to speak out. What’s behind that? Touchy subjects and so on, perhaps. Talking about correct judicial procedure and the lack of protections on EAWs for anyone may be a whole lot easier than 4 letter words.

So that is a general outline recalling some observations the other week, which then lead into some particulars which could be of interest to you.

Some of the recent Nobel awards have themselves raised claims of disrepute and ridicule, in line with this interesting analysis reported in The Local.

“On the eve of the announcement of the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize, The Local catches up with Norwegian lawyer and Nobel historian Fredrik S. Heffermehl, who claims the Norwegian Nobel Committee isn’t following Alfred Nobel’s wishes.”

“Nobel’s will states that the prize should be given to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses”

… “in awarding the prize to politicians such as Barack Obama, Henry Kissinger or even Al Gore, whose work is with the environment and not peace and disarmament, the committee has failed to adhere to the will of the deceased benefactor”.

He concludes:

“The politicians are using Nobel’s name to promote their own ideas, they do not understand that Nobel saw the costly and dangerous threat to human survival that would develop if the world failed to curb militarism. His desire for a global peace order is a much more urgent, mandatory need today than when he wrote his will.”

Seems the humourously called “treasure hunt” didn’t get any responses. Shall I post the references?

The clue that helps searching is that överåklagaren Marianne Ny works at Utvecklingscentrum Göteborg, so it works to search at http://www.jo.se with only 2 terms as “överåklagaren Marianne” or as “Marianne Utvecklingscentrum”.

On the matter of “bringing the Swedish judicial process into widespread disrepute or ridicule”, this has taken a step forward in the international arena this weekend with the publication by award winning journalist Elizabeth Day in The Observer on the Thomas Quick scandal slowly unravelling in Sweden.
Essentially it concerns the prosecution with no evidence for the murder of eight victims based on the false attention-seeking confessions of a man held in care under high doses of psychiatric drugs, and even a review by the chancellor for justice Göran Lambertz giving his approval.

However, what the Observer/Guardian article glaringly omits mention of, is the name of the defence attorney who failed to act at all in the interest of his client, nor justice itself, picking up the case and a hefty state-paid fee after the original attorney resigned over foul play.

He is none other than Claes Borgström.

Namely, the same lawyer who took on the role of representing the two women in the Assange case, and then 3 days later, on 27 August 2010, wrote to the Göteborg development center, i.e. prosecutor Marianne Ny, to have Eva Finné’s decision of 25 August re-examined and upgraded, even while the one remaining potential charge was still under investigation.
Now, as Borgström himself stated to media, the women did not know one could reopen a case, and as they previously stated they had only wanted to force Assange to be tested for HIV, so it would have been highly inconsistent for them to have initiated this action themselves to seek justice for a wrongdoing, and raises suspicions that it was simply made in their name under the power of attorney. He has also made meida statements about the pressure the women were under and that if he was them he wouldn’t have gone to the police at all.

“Claes Borgström, attorney for the two complainants in the case against Julian Assange, will be tried by the Bar Association Disciplinary Committee over email conversations with a Supreme Court Justice during the case of Thomas Quick. If it it ruled that Mr Borgström breached professional conduct, he could be issued a warning or potentially disbarred.”

There is a (rough) translation here from an article in Expressen where Claes Borgström is feeling harrassed at the Bar Association Disciplinary Committee deciding to take up the case of his emails with Supreme Court Justice Göran Lambertz discussing strategies for debate in the Quick case.

This statement most reveals the sense of expectation that it is a self-serving club:

– I feel harassed by the Bar Association. I feel so to the Bar Association distrusts me after all these years. I’ve sat in the Disciplinary Committee for 8 years myself, said Borgström.

On a previous such occasion, it was merely an exercise in absurd theatre.

The Local reported (2010-04-14):
“Claes Borgström, the lawyer who represented convicted serial killer Thomas Quick, has been told there will be no investigation into his conduct after reporting himself to the Swedish Bar Association ”http://www.thelocal.se/26062/20100414/
It was essentially deferred pending the investigations into the many Thomas Quick cases.

Borgström was member of the Swedish Bar Association’s disciplinary board 1992 – 2000, acording to his CV. The association’s chaiman at the time, Tomas’s Nilsson, is a partner in the legal practice where Borgstrom was until he became the Obmudsman for Equality in 2000 and accordingly dropped his share in the practice and left the bar association.

Since the Disciplinary Committee is actually considering the latest matter, it remains to be seen what sort of theatre ensues.

Yes, it’s definitely worth keeping an eye on where the Swedish Bar Association’s inquiry into Borgstrom’s behaviour goes. The current head of the Association made a public statement that the inquiry was focused solely on Borgstrom’s involvement in the leaked emails between Göran Lambertz and the rest of the cabal who fitted Quick up, and not the original investigation or any other matters. But one can hope, I suppose, that it will bleed into those “other matters”, ie. the Assange case.

Borgstrom was also separately reported to the Swedish Bar Association recently – for blatantly prejudicial remarks he made to the Swedish (and international) press following Ecuador’s asylum decision. Apparently, it’s against protocol in Sweden for a defence lawyer to imply a suspect’s guilt before trial. Do you happen to know whether that referral has been dealt with by the SBA yet, or what the outcome was? If it hasn’t yet been resolved, then things are piling up for Borgstrom at the Association, which gives hope that the penalty for his latest transgression might be more than simply a statement of censure and head towards the tougher penalties, such as being disbarred.

Regarding reporting himself to the Bar Association, I’ve read in Flashback that this was a completely cynical move because he did it knowing that the remit of the Association forbids them from looking at something reported by the lawyer himself. Complaints have to come from victims of lawyers’ bad practice, etc.

“Now, as Borgström himself stated to media, the women did not know one could reopen a case, and as they previously stated they had only wanted to force Assange to be tested for HIV, so it would have been highly inconsistent for them to have initiated this action themselves to seek justice for a wrongdoing, and raises suspicions that it was simply made in their name under the power of attorney.”

On this, I read a while back one theory which suggested Ardin might have been prompted to contact Borgstrom as a possible DEFENCE lawyer for herself when the women’s schemes had first started to unravel and move in ways she had not anticipated and she was therefore worried that she was at risk of prosecution herself for making false allegations. That’s what Borgstrom is mostly famous for in Sweden, being a defence lawyer.

Indeed. Well, from the 2010 article I linked to above, when he self-reported, they said they did not want to consider it while there were still other investigations into the Thomas Quick cases, so that could defer it a long, long time yet.
(Incidentally, this stance of waiting reminds me of the Justice Ombudsman, or of a recent scandal at the BBC.)

Are these emails from the 1990’s that Expressen has obtained now? How did they get them? What did they print?

Perhaps there are some grounds for them to consider the emails presently in isolation. It sounded like they were taking it up this time. If it continues to get a growing media attention, and if the Swedish legal community themselves feel more under scrutiny and ridicule, then the Bar Association will perhaps eventually reach the point where they feel under pressure to do something serious about Borgström. Perhaps the makeup of the Disciplinary Board has changed so they have less allegiances to him now.

However, to be cynical, his protestations may simply be more theatre. He has (had?) former legal partners at the Bar Association and had himeslf been on the Disciplinary Board, so he would know it inside out or even have helped shape it. What sort of statutes govern their investigations anyway?

Sorry, I have not followed that other referral you mention. It would likely be covered at thelocal.se and sverigesradio.se (not always in English though), so if you want, try the on-site search there and sort chronologically (sometimes one needs to pick up a term or two in Swedish to enter for the search).

It has always been a very intriguing matter as to exactly when the two women and CB came together, and who initiated the contact. So from your last paragraph, it appears to remain an open question. Facts on that would be most revealing. Recent FOI documents helped narrow it down; I was meaning to set this out sometime. Have you seen any more on this?

Who knows what they were told by whom at which times to possibly manipulate them to take or go along with certain actions. It would be nice to know where AA’s boss Peter Weiderud fits into all this, as he is right up there in the SD party board. He may be a shadow player here.

However, I do not give too much importance to that “DEFENCE lawyer” theory, since if that was the case why would the women ask for the investigation to be re-opened so urgently, even while the one remaining possible charge was still being investigated? Surely they would wait and see and let it most likely drop, since the initial prosecutor gave no indication of going after the women for false accusations. What do you think?

Finally, there are some tricky legal questions that arise regarding what difference does it make even if CB was removed or statements withdrawn etc., since the prosecutor shows determination to ignore her obligations to only pursue a case that is likely to lead to a convction, and so forth. (More reasons she prefers to hide behind not laying charges). It gets into all the rules about correct procedure, and what decisions or actions can be challenged at what time, or if it has to wait for an appeal after it has been concluded etc. This also gets back to whatever charges you mentioned that were being raised on flashback about the prosecutor’s conduct. So a summary on those charges against M. Ny would be nice, as would any more learned legal opinion.

A further tricky legal issue is the way in which ECHR law is in effect in Sweden in a overall way, but has not been written into the statutes and procedures, and further complicated by the EAW, and then again how and when this may be challenged. Again, any more learned legal opinion is welcome.

Have you followed the theory from flashback of “malicious anonymous SMSs”? Very interesting….

Hint.
Rixstep twitter and Rixstep news writes of the details found at Flashback in English, and of course Rudling hates this guy as Rixstep thretened to sue Alan Burke of Swedish NNN site (that is a close friend of Rudling) when he used material from Rixstep. Recently another blogger has started to collect all swedish documentation is this case an published it on under this site in swedish language:http://undermattan.com/2012/08/27/assange-handlingar-fran-domstolar-och-annat/
And of course Rudling has been taking these docs for his own purposes and has been writing a lot of crap.

When it comes to Ardin, she:s known back for a long time to sleep with guys that already has a girlfriend, she was in school called the cocobird (as the cocbird kicks out the other birds from the nest). It seems that she got big plans for Julian, and it was also o.k for her that Julian slept with sofia, (she sms:ed that julian is not here-he´s trying to make it with the kashmir-girl), she could take that if she was to be the official mrs Assange. All this went to an abrupt end suddenly, and due to the type of woman were Ardin didn´t mind whilst Wilen was hypernervous of std, it´s quit possible that some outsider just sms:ed the girls and claimed that Julian had an std-sickness, quite simple and effective, and it explains the whole race to hospital and police as carring an std without telling the other part is an criminal offence, then the cops twisted this around and made it look like an rapecase.

Snap wrote:
“On the Wassgren’s memo – what prompted her to be at work at ca. 6pm on Sunday 22 Aug in the middle of summer (weather? work roster?) so as to write it then and not say on Monday?
Did they already know about the complaint filed against the duty prosecutor on the Monday?”

I suppose you already know the following:
Linda Wassgren and the duty prosecutor agreed that Julian Assange should be arrested already at 1700 on the Friday. This decision was based entirely on Linda’s informal questioning of both women (plus a few phone calls). The women were interviewed together first, later one by one. The decision that this was to be called rape had nothing to do with Irmeli Krans’ formal interrogation of SW, which had barely started when Assange was arrested in absentio. And the formal questioning of AA took place one day later.

Most likely Eva Finne was disturbed by this. She ordered Linda to explain, without delay, what happened on that Friday afternoon.

yes, that is known to us here; see Daniel above (27 Sep, 4:41 pm) for a comprehensive timing. When I asked that I was intrigued by the timestamp of the memo, and was wondering if any other facts on this had emerged from the FOI documents that have been turning up. We had some further discussions; prosecutor on duty Maria Häljebo Kjellstrand, head of the police station Johan Hallberg, policeman Mats Gehlin and others were mentioned. Did Kjellstrand maybe know by Sunday of the complaint to be filed against her and contact/help Wassgren?

The timing and nature of it are indicative that someone demanded a report be made by first thing on Monday. The way you put it sounds quite plausible. What leads you to think the most likely person was Eva Finne?

is the undermattan.com blogger obtaining documents through FOI (Freedom Of Information) requests? He has done well, except some have lots of pages missing. Are there any plans to translate them to English?

What do you know about the blogger posting selected machine translations of flashback at proassange.blogspot.se ?

In two articles on your blog, “Statement of Irmeli Krans” and “Why I am Convinced that Anna Ardin is a Liar” you make fourteen claims that are not supported by facts. On 7 September at 12:28 pm I commented on your article “Statement of Irmeli Krans”. Part of the comment below:

You claim:“The Swedish prosecutor, Marianne Ny, had told the British High Court that even though the statement was unsigned, it was valid as evidence under Swedish law (it would not be under British) because the interview was conducted before two witnesses, Irmeli Krans and Anna Ardin.”

I have not seen anywhere that the prosecutor, Marianne Ny, has stated that the interview with Sofia Wilén was conducted before two witnesses, Irmeli Krans and Anna Ardin. I am putting it to you straight. You are making that up. You lie. Until you can show me a statement where prosecutor Marianne Ny says that “the interview was conducted before two witnesses, Irmeli Krans and Anna Ardin,” I will regard you as an inventor of stories and a certified liar.

Since I accused you of being an inventor of stories and a certified liar you have had 58 days to respond and show some evidence that your claim is true. So far nothing. Nada. Zilch.

On 18 September 1:14 pm I listed your fourteen false claims. After 47 days you still have not been able to show that one of your claims is true. Regarding the claim “Anna Ardin was present throughout Krans’ interview of Wilen” you write in a comment on 13 September 10:35 pm:

“No, Rick Downes was not my source for Ardin being present during the Wilens/Krans interview. There are numerous sources for that. I still believe that to be true.”

I have asked you on numerous occasions to reveal your so called sources. Since 18 September, 47 days ago, you have written approx 11 600 words on your blog. You have still not been able to name one of “your reliable sources” or show any facts in support of your claims.

You are trying to tell people that you are interested in finding out the truth in the Assange case. From your actions it is evident you are not. You are into misrepresentation of facts and making up fanciful stories hoping you are supporting Julian Assange. You are not alone. Julian Assange and his legal team are doing just the same. In an analysis of Jennifer Robinson’s brief to Canberra MPs from 2 March 2011 I found 57 varieties of “truth”.

I understand that you don’t like to be called an inventor of stories and a certified liar. You don’t have to be. It may well be that you have been mislead by unreliable sources. If so, name the sources. Until you respond and come clean I will regard you as just another one of Julian Assange supporters that have very little regard for truth and openness.

3. “Anna Ardin did not take Sofia to the nearest and best police station.”

4. “Anna Ardin took Sofia Wilén to her campaigning feminist friend, policewoman Irmeli Krans, in order to twist Sofia Wilén’s story into a sexual assault”

5. “Rather than see another officer, the two women waited two hours until Krans came on duty.”

6. The Swedish prosecutor, Marianne Ny, had told the British High Court that even though the statement was unsigned, it was valid as evidence under Swedish law
(it would not be under British) because the interview was conducted before two witnesses, Irmeli Krans and Anna Ardin.”

7. “Sofia Wilén refused to sign her statement”

8. “Sofia Wilén have not signed her statement to this day”

9. “Anna Ardin did not report Julian until two days after she had sat through Wilen’s interview with her friend Krans.”

Unfortunately Goran Rudling didn’t bother to read back a bit through the blog before posting above. If he had he would have seen that it has been resolved to everyone’s entire satisfaction that Ardin and Wilen were indeed interviewed together, but by Linda Wassgren, not by Krans. So, Craig’s essential point was correct – just not that detail.

The reason that some docs are missing is the fact that some parts are classified and therefore not under the FOI-act, this is an ongoing investigation and therefore some parts are classified during this investigation.

Here is another example of Rudlings quality, he wrote in his blog just recently:

In Sweden this is forbidden, a witness is not allowed to read ANYTHING from an ongoing investigation, as it can destroy a courtcase. Rudling wanted to access the secret Detention Memorandum before taking the stand in the English court. This action would have disqualified him as a witness if he was able to read it, and I suppose that Jennifier then would have been punished by the bar assosiation.

In the same blog he then links to the redacted version of AA’s police-interview, that the press got hold of 2 days later.
If you read this and compare with the complete and secret one thats on the internet, you will find out that Ardins name is reveiled in the first part while its fully censored in the rest of the redacted version. The court does not make these kinds of mistakes, they would get sued directly, so someone has tampered with this document outside.
link to the redacted version: http://samtycke.nu/doc/ass-anna-redac.pdf

This shows how Rudling gets hold of documents, then twist the facts around, he only shows 2 pages out of a 37 paged document etc etc, and now we have a tampered doc from the court on his website. If we go back to august 2010 you will find out that Ardins name and the removed twitters was found by Flashback people on the 23-24/8 2010, while Rudling states that he found it in sept 2010, the difference is that he mailed Ardin and then contacted the police.

Rudlings background before Assange was charged is also disturbing and has been mentioned here before, as I see it he is more than just a “troll”, he has interest in piggybacking on a high profile case, he has interest in twisting it around, and he tried to ruin his own witness statement.

Therefore we can sum it up as follows:
Rudlings background and statement does not match up, its fake.
Rudling has not made any own investigation, all facts has been taken from Flashback and other sources.
Rudling tried to get inside the Wikileaks organisation – mail from Mary Eng discloses these facts
Rudling takes docs from other sources and twist them around, and he does this with specific timings.
All people involved in this case gets more or less accused of being a liar in some way, while he is mr right – always.

Therefore, I strongly recommend anyone going into a discussion with mr. Rudling to be aware of these facts, Rudling has a specific agenda in this case. As Rudling appeared on internet at the same time as Assange:S first trip to Sweden without any trouble in april 2010, all points shows more that he and his blog is just a smokescreen.

Duku (or Wtfuk), can I ask you to pass a couple of things on to Flashback for discussion please?

The first concerns the recent suggestion in Flashback about writing to Anders Perklev. I’ve suggested before that the Swedish translation of the open letter appearing on the Justice for Assange Action page would be ideal for this (with the first sentence, which is now out of date, taken out). I’ll reproduce the English version of the letter in a separate comment below so you can read for yourself why I think that. For example, it already contains direct reference to Marianne Ny’s Objectivity obligations as set out on the Swedish Prosecution Authority’s English page. It also focuses on the DNA-free condom. It could be altered very easily to include reference to the hospital rape certificate that one Flashbacker wants it to cover.

Now that Flashback has started its campaign to get official comment on the Assange case from Swedish political parties would be a very good time for people to email Perklev with this letter, as everyone who sends the letter to him could make sure they also cc it to their local political representative or some of the politicians Flashback has invited to comment. This adds hugely to the embarrassment factor for Perklev and/or those politicians.

This technique worked incredibly well here in the UK with a different open letter about Assange’s case and that one succeeded in getting Assange’s name mentioned in a Parliamentary debate on revising the UK’s extradition laws. Some say it (this technique) also played a part in the very unexpected High Court decision to grant Assange leave to request permission to appeal his case to the Supreme Court (permission to appeal isn’t automatic, you see, it has to be granted). Theory is that the letter had been so widely cc’d to MPs that it had created enough of a political ‘hot potato’ for the case to be ‘kicked upstairs’ to get it off the agenda for a while.

Perhaps a mass Flashback emailing of an altered version of this open letter to Perklev copied to as many Swedish politicians as you can think of could facilitate a similar ‘miraculous’ outcome in Sweden?

Mr Assange’s case has drawn international attention and left many ordinary European citizens questioning what safeguards and protections there are in the EAW scheme for people facing police investigation in Europe. In view of this, could you please provide some clarity for non-Swedish citizens on some aspects of Swedish judicial procedure for which you as Prosecutor General have overall responsibility.

On 6 December 2011 the Swedish Prosecution Authority issued a statement pointing out that Sweden decided to make ALL public prosecutors “judicial authorities” for the purposes of issuing EAWs under the Framework Directive. This is not something that was anticipated by British Parliamentarians when drafting the UK Extradition Act 2003 (Hansard), who felt strongly that such warrants should only be issued by a court. May I ask why you felt it necessary to issue such a statement on that date?

Mr Assange’s name was leaked to the press, apparently by the Stockholm Prosecution Service, which is illegal under Sweden’s privacy laws. Can you outline – for an international audience – what steps were taken to investigate this and a summary of the findings. How were those responsible dealt with?

Can you publish some statistics on how often a Swedish public prosecutor nominates themselves as the chief investigator in a case? The Swedish Prosecution Authority English website says: “In the case of less serious crimes, the police continue to lead the preliminary investigation.” As the strongest allegation against Mr Assange is described on the Prosecution Authority’s own website as “less serious crime”, it is not clear why Marianne Ny is involved in the case as chief investigator at this stage.

Mutual Legal Assistance is ordinarily used to interrogate people in foreign jurisdictions. However, Marianne Ny stated that British and Swedish law prevented her from questioning Julian Assange in London, which was untrue. Her statement was later redacted. What disciplinary measures are available to you as Prosecutor General when a senior public prosecutor misleads the public in this way?

Can you please outline – if only in general terms – on what basis this case was re-opened on 1 September 2010 after Eva Finné, a senior prosecutor you appointed to review it, cancelled the original arrest warrant – “I consider that there are no grounds for suspecting that he has committed rape.” – leaving only one instance of alleged molestation still to be investigated? From reading the leaked police protocol on the internet – as millions of people across Europe have – there seems to be only one item of new evidence which might have appeared between Eva Finné’s decision on 25 August 2010 and the re-opening of the case, a torn used condom. However, the forensic analysis of 25 October 2010 included in the prosecution protocol does not support any offences related to this item being included on the face of the EAW issued by Marianne Ny on 18 November 2010. To put it plainly, no DNA could be found on this condom.

This would appear not to meet the Prosecution Authority’s Objectivity Demand (on your website): “Forensic evidence must, of course, be gathered and investigated in a correct and secure manner. The prosecutor must also be objective when he or she initiates a prosecution. During the course of the trial it is admittedly the prosecutor’s task to prove that a crime has been committed, but the prosecutor is obliged to give due consideration to anything that could change the situation with respect to evidence.”

Again, please outline – for an international audience – whether this is a disciplinary matter and, if so, what disciplinary measures are available to you as Prosecutor General.

I am particularly concerned that Mutual Legal Assistance has not been used in this case. Under Sweden’s Code of Judicial Procedure “the investigation should be conducted so that no person is unnecessarily exposed to suspicion, or put to unnecessary cost or inconvenience.” (Chapter 23, Section 4) and there is no doubt that a great deal of both Swedish and British taxpayers’ money has been wasted arguing this extradition in court when much simpler methods could have been used to question Julian Assange. Can you please explain the mechanisms by which Britain is reimbursed its costs in representing the Swedish Prosecution Authority in the UK courts? Likewise, what avenues are available to Mr Assange to seek recompense for his substantial personal legal costs in challenging this abuse of the European Arrest Warrant process?

The second thing I’d be grateful if you could pass to Flashback for their consideration, if you wouldn’t mind, is about Sophie Wilen’s testimony.

I see there’s been some discussion recently of what the Guy Sim book says about both condoms being requisitioned from Ardin at around 6pm on 21 August 2010. Now I’m not going to dispute that fact – you Flashbackers will know better than me how to read a Swedish evidence requisition order – but I personally don’t think it’s necessarily correct. You see, the thing that doesn’t make sense is that Sim assumes Sophie Wilen had been carrying around a piece of condom with the thought that it could maybe help in assessing whether Assange had HIV when she went to the hospital, supposedly for that purpose.

Why carry around a piece of condom? Surely if you still had a used condom lying around from a recent lover whose sexual health you were worried about you’d take the whole condom, to give the hospital more chance of getting a decent-sized sample of semen to analyse? It makes no sense to cut a piece out of a used condom for that purpose.

Personally, I don’t buy the ‘not-very-bright, railroaded by everyone else’ version of Sophie Wilen. (Don’t forget we only hear that from Wilen’s witness friends who were interviewed long after the event, and each of them imply they first heard from her that she was raped while asleep/was ‘railroaded’ when she contacted them at some point AFTER 20 August 2010, ie all their testimony is hearsay received directly from her. Read those witness statements again.) Guy Sim’s book also adds quite a lot of new information about Wilen’s studies and travels (including that she had studied Drama at one point; some training as an actress then?), a US boyfriend with uncertain residency status and annual trips to the US (on a student’s income?). There’s a level of sophistication and worldliness there.

There’s something else too. This business of a piece of condom “found under the bed where the suspect lay” and “in the dark MA1 heard noises like pulling a balloon” [paraphrasing there, from memory], which Gehlin carefully notes on the forensic report. It seems both Guy Sim and Flashback are assuming that this is something made up by Ardin when she handed in Wilen’s condom piece along with her own DNA-free condom. But Gehlin’s notes (although he doesn’t say who exactly he heard these things from) are quite clear the information is from MA1 (Wilen). And I think that’s right. Here’s why:

The on-duty prosecutor has issued an arrest warrant for rape based on the urgency of what she hears in phone calls from Klara police station and the Family Violence Unit which are in turn based on what the two women have said – together – to Linda Wassgren. Not on Wilen’s formal interview with Krans and not on Ardin’s telephone interview the following day. Remember the key phrase Ardin told Donald Bostrum – the exact words, as he specifically recalled – which she’s chipped in and which turned the whole thing into a formal complaint, because there were two women saying the same thing? – “I believe Sophia is telling the truth because something similar happened to me”. This clearly indicates that whatever was said to convince Wassgren, Gehlin, other officers at Klara and the on-duty prosecutor that rape had been committed was said by Sophie FIRST and then backed up by Ardin’s “similar” story. To me, this says that Sophia deliberately told a story about Assange damaging a condom (“in the dark MA1 heard noises like pulling a balloon”) and produced a piece of condom with Assange’s DNA on it to prove it and was promptly backed up by Ardin with her story of a deliberately damaged condom. It doesn’t really matter whether Wilen produced her piece of condom on the spot there and then, or had left it with Ardin to be handed in later. She had already been carrying that piece of condom around for some time, presumably including the point at which she turned up at a hospital at a very great distance from her home or work with a big “Reception for Rape Victims” notice… I think Wilen is the real instigator of the ‘rape’ allegations (all Ardin’s post-20 August statements corroborate that too, btw) but then she watered down what she’d told Wassgren to something much more innocuous in her formal statement to Krans (reviewed by Eva Finne and thrown out, doctored by Borgstrom after contact from Ardin and Gehlin, and then revived by Ny) to avoid any potential prosecution for making false allegations. But she didn’t tell Ardin that’s what she’d done and so left Ardin to carry the can and to do all the desperate fire-fighting, pradoemat/smear campaigns, etc. The subsequent actions of some of the key figures make sense if they continued to act in the way that they did because they believed the first story they heard: Wilen’s account to Wassgren, eg Gehlin ignoring Finne’s instruction to do nothing more; sending both condoms to the lab when Wilen’s case had been closed; focusing on the ‘torn condom’ when interviewing Assange; the on-duty prosecutor having no regrets, etc, etc.

It’s the only scenario that fits “two women saying the SAME THING”. All cooked up between them beforehand. Hopefully, when the SMS texts between the women finally become public domain (come on, George Galloway – spit ‘em out!) this will become all too clear.

Don’t forget too that Bostrom’s statement indicates that Wilen LIED to Assange when he had a phone conversation with her on the Friday morning, 20 August, when she was already at the hospital. Assange was convinced by this conversation that everything was fine and Wilen and he had agreed they would meet the next day, Saturday afternoon, to sort everything out. Within an hour or so of that conversation Wilen was at Klara with Ardin…

There’s a bit about that phone conversation in Assange’s own statement. And then there’s that bit in Bostrum’s statement where he quotes Assange’s reaction to something which has been relayed (I think through Ardin):

“That is a pure, pure, pure, pure lie”

Strong words from a man who’s known for making cautious and measured statements as a rule. What exactly did he hear to elicit such a strong reaction?

The reason I mention about Wilen having studied Drama and therefore having some training as an actress is because I’ve long held the view that Wilen’s “distress” on hearing that there was an arrest warrant for rape already out on Assange was a bit too ‘convenient’.

Faked “distress” to terminate an interview and avoid putting her signature on any allegations that might get her in trouble if they were to be properly investigated? A nice handy ‘get out’ she had the method-acting skills to do? And then she just ‘disappears’ – all online traces professionally scrubbed and no one now knows where she is… Not a single peep from her since – a huge contrast with Ardin, in every way. Huge.

I have noted that you and your allies have come to the conclusion that the two women came to the police station together. Fantastic work. The rest of the world knew this since 21 August 2010.

You have also finally found out that when the two women came to the police station they talked to Linda Wassgren. Craig Murray’s statement: “Rather than see another officer, the two women waited two hours until Krans came on duty” is false.

According to Linda Wassgren’s memorandum she talked to the women briefly and when she found out they wanted to report sex crimes she separated the women and interviewed them one on one. You have now decided to call the first few minutes when Linda talked to the two women together an “interview”. Interesting. And you say it is to “everyone’s entire satisfaction”. I don’t believe you. Most people aren’t that stupid.

Now I know for certain that Craig Murray is an inventor of stories and a certified liar. Your defence of Craig Murray is even worse than the defence of Julian Assange.

Wow! If Goran Rudling jumps in so quickly to try to pour scorn (Goran’s hallmark – it’s all he’s got left since we ripped his ridiculous assertion that Assange had been charged apart) on what I’ve written I must be on to something important…

If I was Goran I wouldn’t even bother trying to post anything in Craig’s blog because he’s been so thoroughly discredited here in the eyes of most of Craig’s readers that no one pays the slightest attention to him anymore. Goran’s game was up as soon as Craig posted Goran’s private correspondence with Mary Eng Lenore in the “A Real Treat in Store” thread…

– Have you considered that they may have carefully not stated claims about the condoms being from a specific act, but left it uncertain to avoid making a false claim?

– Have you considered which statements were made after being advised by a lawyer etc.? i.e. at which point stories changed?

– What solid evidence formed the basis of this meme “all online traces professionally scrubbed”? It assumes that she had a significant online presence, which is actually not true for many people, and saying “all” is an absolute totality which is not the case, so one would say “most”.

I take it as understood I was not asking about Mr Rudling; however I’m sure others appreciate the background.

Rico Santin once talked above about finding out what funding support such bloggers receive and I pointed out (9 Oct, 2:49 pm) some ideas to dig up info so perhaps someone in Sweden can chase that.
So is the single matter on which Mr Rudling gains credibility his getting lucky in contacting AA on the deleted tweets/posts?

So you are at least confirming these are FOI requests, not leaks. I understood they are redacted; it is just a pity not to have the 4 of 6 pages from Borgstrom where he asks for the case to be re-opened

Is anyone good at locating the original source of notable quotes to media by Borgstrom I have been asking about?

Is anyone interested in hunting at jo.se as I suggested?

Did I see Rick Falkvinge on flashback recently explaining when and why Peter Weiderud(?) first asked Assange to come to Sweden from England? Had there been any earlier contact? I have always been curious about that and thought the idea of needing an invitation to ensure safe passage (or whatever it was) sounded strange. And when did Weiderud and co. first know about Wikileaks forming an alliance with the rival Pirate Party?

It seems like you are the same duqu that is frequently posting at the Flashback forum. If that it not true, please say so.

Recently I posted an article that shows that Jennifer Robinson made 57 errors in her brief to Australian Members of Parliament from March 2011. The number of errors is so large it cannot be a simple mistake. Jennifer must have actively misrepresented facts.

Of course I am paid by CIA, SÄPO, MI5, Pentagon, FBI, NSI and a whole lot of other abbreviations. You are very intelligent to have found out. The fact that you are wearing a tin foil hat is just a coincidence.

There are many things that you do not understand. Let me help you with some.

The Detention Memorandum was sent to the English legal team on 23 November 2010. On the first page it says: “Please notice that the documents are legally privileged information for Mr Julian Asssange and nobody else”. Jennifer Robinson sent these documents to a number of people. Among them Brita Sundberg-Weitman. In her expert witness statement she states: ”I have also been provided the portions of the police file that have been disclosed to Mr Assange’s lawyer in Sweden, Mr Hurtig”

The Detention Memorandum was published on Flashback on 30 January 2011 at 22:11. I read the Detention Memorandum prior to appearing at the extradition hearing on 7-8 February 2011. Jennifer Robinson knew that I had read the Detention Memorandum. Clare Montgomery asked me about it in my cross-examination. There were no reactions. Your statements regarding the Detention Memorandum are false. Actually you have no clue but that does not prevent you from voicing your opinion.

The redacted version of the interview with Anna Ardin is from the police file that were disclosed to Aftonbladet on 23 August. It is in its original form. Anna Ardin’s name is on it.

What is of interest is that your comments about this particular document shows exactly what you are up to. You comment on things you have no clue. You write: . The court does not make these kinds of mistakes, they would get sued directly.

Firstly you have no knowledge whatsoever about any mistakes made in redacting. Zero.

Secondly it was not a court that disclosed the material. It was the Police Department, Polismyndigheten i Stockholms län.

Thirdly the police department does not get sued for making mistakes redacting documents.

Now to something that you claim you know something about. The deleted tweets. You claim they were on Flashback 23-24/8 2010:

If we go back to august 2010 you will find out that Ardins name and the removed twitters was found by Flashback people on the 23-24/8 2010, while Rudling states that he found it in sept 2010, the difference is that he mailed Ardin and then contacted the police.

You are either doing a full Craig Murray, lie about facts, or you have some evidence. Please show me where on Flashback the tweets are.

Here is my response (as best as I am able) to your questions addressed to me:

– I don’t have exact times for the hospital visits or the Wilen/Assange phone call, I’m afraid, but I think I have seen them somewhere at some point. Flashback or Rixstep might have them. A certain amount about the order of events – and where the phone call fits into it – can be deduced from Donald Bostrom’s and Assange’s witness statements.

– Wilen’s intentions certainly DID change while she was at the hospital, or very shortly thereafter, if we believe that she WAS being truthful in the first place when talking to Assange. Assuming for the moment that she did honestly intend to meet with Assange the next day and had no plans to the police as she reassured him, then yes, something or someone got to her in the hour or so before she did in fact turn up at Klara police station at 2pm Friday 20 August 2010. Or… that was her intention all along, as part of the plan previously agreed with Ardin sometime between Wilen’s first contact with Ardin on 18th August and 2pm on the Friday afternoon.

– There is a big scandal about fake rape certificates being issued by that particular hospital. Rixstep has done an article on this issue. Should be easy enough to find if you check Rixstep’s “Assange” archive.

– “Have you considered that they may have carefully not stated claims about the condoms being from a specific act, but left it uncertain to avoid making a false claim?” No, I haven’t considered this question in any depth – my thesis is simply that both women planned to tell the police a story about Assange deliberately damaging condoms during sex: Wilen having “retrieved” a piece of a ‘deliberately damaged’ condom from under her bed; Ardin improvising with an unused one later on. Mats Gehlin’s notes on the forensic report already imply a suitably vague story from the MA1 complainant: she “heard something that sounded like pulling a balloon” in the dark. There’s enough ‘uncertainty’ in that to cover her, I should think.

– Not sure. The “we only want to ask about forcing someone to take a HIV test” may have been a ruse, a ‘cover story’, for the real purpose of making false rape allegations from the start. (It doesn’t really hold up scientifically anyway, given the length of time it takes HIV antibodies to show up conclusively in tests. Getting a partner tested isn’t a shortcut for a woman to know whether she has been infected herself.) There is some mention of the women “seeking advice” in Wassgren’s memo but no specific mention that it was advice about HIV they wanted. Also, no mention of it in the very first interview with the press by Ardin, IIRC.

But… but… the Wassgren memo is so heavily censored – specifically about Wilen’s story – that it’s very hard to know exactly what that story was… So, although the Wassgren interview, the formal Krans interview (uncensored version, as seen by Finne) and Ardin’s telephone interview were all made before the women had spoken to a lawyer, I think Wilen’s story may have changed between the Wassgren and Krans interviews (without Ardin’s knowledge). Eva Finne rescinded the warrant around 5pm on 21st August (so, after Ardin’s telephone statement and her interview with Aftonbladet earlier on the 21st) with a short statement. Finne also made a fuller public statement, shutting down virtually the whole case, on 23rd August. I think it was at THIS point that Claes Borgstrom was consulted for advice, and he then got involved with rewriting Wilen’s statement (helped by Gehlin who emailed him both copies of Wilen’s 20 August statement – the uncensored version seen by Finne and the censored version already released to the press and publicly available, as detailed in Guy Sim’s new book), which was input to Durvta on 26 August. This is the version that we’re all familiar with but, according to Guy Sim, it’s a work of fiction anyway as the “necessary changes” that Borgstrom made are really, really extensive.

I copied quite a few different open letters about the Assange case to UK MPs, including IIRC the English version of this one to Anders Perklev. About 10 MPs responded to me personally, people like Caroline Lucas, Jeremy Corbyn, Zac Goldsmith and a few less well-known names. There IS interest and support in political circles but the difficulty I think is twofold: 1) they have to keep within the Parliamentary rules concerning only taking up their own constituents’ cases and 2) sticking their heads above the parapet. That’s why I am suggesting that Flashback use a gattling gun approach and scatter cc’s of whatever letter they decide to use across the full spectrum of as many Swedish political names as they can think of.

PS. Your “Borgstrom and Ny discuss their retirement” video has shown up in Flashback and has been retweeted by Rixstep. Heh! Well done.

Thanks Arbed. We must keep pressing for answers. It is not just Assange’s freedom we need to ensure.

I am really concerned about the five UK-born Muslim citizens, including babar Ahmad and Talha Ahsan, who are in solitary confinement in the United States, extradited by the ‘UK’s vassal’ as Craig Murray put it. Theresa May, daughter of an Anglican clergyman, has a lot to answer for when she meets her maker.

From Linda Wassgrens memo.
”Inledelsevis så nämndes brottet våldtäkt och att båda kvinnorna skulle varit utsatta. My translation: In the beginning the crime of rape was mentioned and that both women were exposed.”
We don’t know how much time Wassgren spent with both women together. Rudling refers to this as “the first few minutes”. He is bluffing. We simply don’t know. It could have been ten, or twenty, or more. Perhaps they sat down and had coffee together? We know that they must have enough time for Sofia to tell her story and for Anna to “fill in a sentence”. That course of events was formative. Therefore important, however many minutes it lasted.

The duty prosecutor, Maria Häljebo Kjellstrand, may or may not have known that Anna and Sofia were not yet formally questioned when she took her decision to arrest Assange.

Quote: Göran Rudling“Now to something that you claim you know something about. The deleted tweets. You claim they were on Flashback 23-24/8 2010:

‘If we go back to august 2010 you will find out that Ardins name and the removed twitters was found by Flashback people on the 23-24/8 2010, while Rudling states that he found it in sept 2010, the difference is that he mailed Ardin and then contacted the police.’

You are either doing a full Craig Murray, lie about facts, or you have some evidence. Please show me where on Flashback the tweets are.

Here is one of the many forum posts on Flashback, posted between August 21 and August 24, about the deleted Tweets claimed to be “discovered” by Mr Rudling a month later:

2010-08-22, 15:30https://www.flashback.org/sp25009693
(post states that AA is deleting all Tweats about Assange and contains a description of AA:s deleted Twitter about the cray fish party she threw for JA)

Thank you for responding most admirably with such consideration to my questions. We don’t all have the details of all the witness statements and so on engraved in our brain cells, nor have all tried to follow flashback through translation, nor seen any of the books, so at times we may wonder if you have seen some new hard facts which are rather secret to most. Speculation is excellent as long as it is flagged as such; in science we call this a hypothesis, and the crux of good science is then to ask how can that be tested, what would show it to be false, is it consistent with other knowns, or to look at probabilities and estimate how sure one is.

The whole situation would be easier to keep track of with some provisional timelines, say one for each day. Want to contribute?

indeed, and the shorter the time they spent with here initially, the more questionable is the outcome of the arrest order that resulted from it. Orb and I had earlier discussed that they were seated, so that tends to indicate they were at her desk, and not just standing at a front counter.

I have since found that already on the Sunday 22 Aug 2010 there were articles about Johann Binninge of the RO making a complaint, as well as Sven-Erik Alhelm criticising the prosecutor.

I’m still wondering as before (1 Nov, 7:25 pm),
what leads you to think the most likely person was Eva Finne?

Your question. I have read somewhere that Linda gave this as an explanation to the memo. I cannot recall if this is in the Flashback thread, or if it is in one of its linked documents. Sorry not to be more precise. If I find out during the next few days I will come back and post it here.

Friendly greetings too! Yes, you are quite right, what I have posted above about Sophie Wilen’s testimony is hypothesis, based on what evidence is available in the public domain and which I have personally reviewed. I know a heck of a lot about the case but I’m not privy to any ‘secret’ stuff. I have had personal correspondence with a few people who have been involved with the case, or have publicly commented on it, at one point or other but I don’t believe in breaking the confidentiality of my correspondants. As you state, there is still a sizeable amount of evidence which has been withheld or heavily redacted so it is very difficult to state anything about this case with absolute 100% certainty. I hope the way I word things makes it clear that this is how I personally interpret what we know, or think we know, so far. Perhaps I slip from time to time and state things too boldly, not hedging my statements enough. However, I do feel confident that my proposals are consistent internally within the available evidence and I have been diligent in cross-checking for that consistency amongst the various witness statements, timings, public statements, etc. I’m always open to having any gaps in my knowledge in this respect filled in – everything helps.

Your idea of a timeline for each day to which we could all add is an excellent one. It would be an enormous boon to be able to bring in exact timings, etc and would make the connections and motives of key protagonists much clearer, I feel. I wonder how we could organise that? I would like to contribute, certainly. Have you heard of Pirate Pads? They are online collaborative forums. I’ve never participated in one but I’ve read a few and they look reasonably easy to use.

Oh, btw, I’ve realised I forgot to answer your question about Sophie Wilen’s online presence being ‘professionally scrubbed’. I’m aware that there has been a very small amount of her photographic work and exhibitions found now (which is revealing of how widely she’s travelled, particularly to the States), but it’s still true that her info was so effectively removed (there is much more data on private citizens – annual income, for example – made publicly available in Sweden under normal circumstances) that professional help in the matter is very, very likely. Again, Rixstep has done some very good articles on this. His article called “T20″ is a good starting point.

Guy Sim’s book “Julian Assange in Sweden – what really happened” is an excellent resource and I can’t recommend it highly enough. It costs less than $3 to download (available in many different formats):

I’ve spotted just two typos, I think, of the wrong day/date variety – insignificant for anyone who knows the case reasonably well – and these are corrected anyway later on in the book as Sim chooses to revisit certain pieces of evidence several times to look at them in different contexts. This is, I think, a helpful approach in such a complex case.

There is also much which is new (at least to a non-Swedish speaking audience), especially as regards Sophie Wilen and how extensively her witness statement has been altered. This is very carefully analysed in the book.

Sim takes a sympathetic view towards Wilen and tends to lay the blame for what happened largely at Anna Ardin’s door, but it is interesting to me how frequently in the book Sim describes anomalies in respect of the investigation of Wilen’s story as “extraordinary” (in terms of omissions in that investigation, mainly) and yet the same thing doesn’t seem to apply with Ardin. That’s one thing which leapt out at me as I read it. Perhaps others will notice the same thing? This isn’t a criticism of Guy Sim’s analysis at all, and I don’t think it’s simply a reflection of his bias towards Wilen. In fact, I think it shows the opposite: he is accurately detailing the investigation and these omissions and anomalies come as a genuine surprise to him. (Not to me, though – still, it’s very useful to have them all gathered in one place as they do bring up a lot of questions.)

Yes, I’m utterly outraged about the treatment of Babar Ahmad and Talha Ahsan too. It is an absolute disgrace and I signed the petitions for both of them, all to no avail unfortunately. I met Talha’s brother once. That poor, poor family. As far as I’m aware (and I don’t, unfortunately, know their cases as well as I know Assange’s) they have been extradited for “crimes” of material support for terrorism for running a website years before 9/11 ever happened (and which they closed down once the world had changed subsequent to that event). What on earth have they been extradited for? To be made an example of? To add to the FBI’s “tally” of thwarted terrorists plots that have never actually materialised (because they never existed in the first place) but which justify the continued efforts (and budget) of the counterterrorist federal agencies in the US?

The whole idea of free speech activities falling under the rubric of “terrorism” as far as the US National Security State is concerned repulses me. I believe Gareth Pierce is Babar’s and Talha’s lawyer too. She’s a wonder, that woman.

The other problem Arbed is that now they are in America their treatment will be much harsher. In my opinion it is torture. They are kept in solitary confinement for 23 hour every day and even then are not allowed to meet others (if my understanding is correct). 98% of people in American custody agree to a plea-bargain because of these severe torturous conditions. They plead guilty for a reduced sentence. It is one hell of a sick country, the United States of America.

I bought a copy and have read the first 50 pages of Guy Sims “Julian Assange in Sweden – what really happened” and defy anyone, except Göran Rudling, to read them and not be convinced that Anna Ardin is a liar, the title of this blog post. At first she said she did not have sex with Julian Assange, then she said she did have consensual sex, then she appears to have told police she was raped. On top of that she has deliberately perverted the course of justice by deleting incriminating tweets and her 7 steps of revenge against men who dump their women.

What I think it really needs to clear Julian Assange’s name is for a separate case to be taken out against the police and prosecution service for tampering with statements. I’d chip something in for that case to proceed. I’m sure thousands more would do as well.

As to Gareth Peirce, everybody should read her article in The London Review of Books, to learn what conditions are really like in US penal institutions, and how repressive their laws are. As you say she’s a wonder. But you can have justice and truth on your side and still lose the case when your Home Secretary is Theresa May.

Hi guys – thanks for re-posting part of my previous comment. I’ve read your discussion about it with interest. But you missed a very important piece, which I think adds weight to my thesis and which I’d like to hear your thoughts on. It’s this bit:

“I see there’s been some discussion recently of what the Guy Sim book says about both condoms being requisitioned from Ardin at around 6pm on 21 August 2010. Now I’m not going to dispute that fact – you Flashbackers will know better than me how to read a Swedish evidence requisition order – but I personally don’t think it’s necessarily correct. You see, the thing that doesn’t make sense is that Sim assumes Sophie Wilen had been carrying around a piece of condom with the thought that it could maybe help in assessing whether Assange had HIV when she went to the hospital, supposedly for that purpose.

Why carry around a piece of condom? Surely if you still had a used condom lying around from a recent lover whose sexual health you were worried about you’d take the whole condom, to give the hospital more chance of getting a decent-sized sample of semen to analyse? It makes no sense to cut a piece out of a used condom for that purpose.”

Can anyone think of a good reason why someone would take only a piece of a used condom to a hospital for HIV testing and not the whole condom? I can’t. So maybe little Miss SW had entirely other things in mind for that piece of condom with Assange’s DNA on it…?

I repeat another couple of points I made, for good measure:

“Don’t forget too that Bostrom’s statement indicates that Wilen LIED to Assange when he had a phone conversation with her on the Friday morning, 20 August, when she was already at the hospital. Assange was convinced by this conversation that everything was fine, and that Wilen and he had agreed they would meet the next day, Saturday afternoon, to sort everything out. Within an hour or so of that conversation Wilen was at Klara with Ardin… Someone got to her in that hour or so? Or going to the police was Wilen’s plan all along?

There’s a bit about that phone conversation in Assange’s own statement. And then there’s that bit in Bostrum’s statement where he quotes Assange’s reaction to something which has been relayed (I think through Ardin):

“That is a pure, pure, pure, pure lie”

Strong words from a man who’s known for making cautious and measured statements as a rule. What exactly did he hear to elicit such a strong reaction? Was it a reaction to something attributed to Sophie Wilen? “The other woman wanted to report rape”, Ardin said on several occasions.

And…

“The reason I mention about Wilen having studied Drama [as reported in Guy Sim’s book] and therefore having some training as an actress is because I’ve long held the view that Wilen’s “distress” on hearing that there was an arrest warrant for rape already out on Assange was a bit too ‘convenient’.

Faked “distress” to terminate an interview and avoid putting her signature on any allegations that might get her in trouble if they were to be properly investigated? A nice handy ‘get out’ [having just heard about Assange arrest warrant, so ‘mission accomplished’?] she had the method-acting skills to do? And then she just ‘disappears’ – all online traces professionally scrubbed and no one now knows where she is… Not a single peep from her since – a huge contrast with Ardin, in every way. Huge.”

Sofia Wilén at university in Wales.
On Thursday 9 December 2010, Australian artist Deej Fabyc wrote in her blog, under heading “Honey Trap2 ????”, “The names of the two women associated with the Julian Assange sex crime debacle emerged this week and to my surprise It seems that I know the younger one of these women personally. She was part of an exhibition called Nordic Stories that I presented in collaboration with curator Rachel O’Dowd at Elastic Residence
in 2007. I also taught her Video and Performance on her BA Hons Fine Art Course at the University of Wales Newport.

Arbed, to play Devil’s advocate, the same accusation, acting skills, could be leveled at Guy Sims. But I know what you’re saying. My cartoon ‘Revenge on Assange’ asks similar questions. I tried to play it just now and it stuck on 12 seconds. What is going on? Can anybody else play it?

As regards the condom I guess we’re supposed to think that she just took the tip in to prove that it had been deliberately torn. Who the Hell would deliberately tear a condom? I have had one tear on me in the past, but it wasn’t deliberate. Somebody who could lie like Anna Ardin would have no problem in scraping Assange’s DNA from some item in her flat: bedsheets perhaps. I don’t know whether that’s possible but may be. These lying people should be on trial.

Thanks, I’m sure you have a better overview of this; I was just curious and trying to unravel the impressions I had formed working back from the complaint and then seeing the date on the memo which turned up recently. In case you remember reading other points or are aware of likely standard procedures, feel free to comment more.

From the “if he shows up tell him…” line one sees Eva Finne as being annoyed but laid back, however behind the scenes and as the international scandal sank in one can see her taking a stand for due process and holding the police to account, and protecting the reputation of the prosecutor’s office.
From afar one doesn’t see them as being distinct and in different buildings and having rivalries between them. Also, at this stage the prosecutor is acting more like a magistrate in granting an arrest warrant, which is unfamiliar.

So it comes down to a phone call from the police to the duty prosecutor, with no written records at that stage? However, shouldn’t the duty prosecutor be clued up on police cutting corners and be asking to be sure there was sufficient probable grounds?

A few other related questions seem to arise:

– If Eva Finne was on vacation (was she?), then how did she come to be called in to sort it out?
– What is the usual practice for appointing the victim’s (and accused) attorney?
– Would it be usual (or even allowed) for the police to put a victim in contact with a specific attorney?
– Would the scrutiny have lead the police to be warning the victims they may be up for making false accusations, and they had better seek counsel?

– According to CB, both SW and AA visited him on the Monday, however at that stage only one was remaining as a possible victim, so that does not make sense with the narrative of “only wanting him to be tested”, so why did both contact CB?
One idea was that they arranged this on Friday or early Saturday before the charges were mostly withdrawn, and kept the appointment. Otherwise, there was some new motive.

Another observation that says something is that there was not criticism (that I’ve seen, but perhaps the tabloids did?) of Eva Finne from the press or bloggers or feminists that a serial rapist was being set free etc…

I’m still back at catching up with details to (6 Nov, 5:36 pm) as I have a few points to fill in and I am aware of more than you assume, which is mildly annoying, or hinting from considerable expertise for you to think clearly about what impressions you have made based on catchy stories. I didn’t really expect such a long reply to those points, but was provoking you to think clearly or consider options, which for the most part you demonstrated you can do when you set your mind to it. How can I encourage more of that?

Sometimes I don’t know and am seeking info, other times I’m asking you to consider other posibilities, other times I am questioning your assumptions and statements you have made without qualification and asking you to justify them with clear reasoning and references, or else to take care to include suitable qualifiers in future. Is there a way I can phrase my questions to make that more obvious?

This is interesting and fun but leaves me overloaded in having to unwind misunderstood responses etc. and delays me to catch up on other posts I have been drafting. You also seemed to confuse John the other day with your unclear quoting/translating flashback’s reference to him.

So that explains my delay. Certainly keep posting highlights from this book.

Ahh, I think you may be getting the two elements of condom evidence mixed up. According to the forensic lab report what was handed in was:

1) a piece of condom from MA1 (Sophie Wilen) with both male and female DNA on it. The male DNA on this piece of condom matched male DNA on a swab taken from MA1 herself. The female DNA on the condom piece matched MA1’s swab too. Also on the forensic report is policeman Mats Gehlin’s notes that this piece of condom was found under MA1’s bed and a cryptic reference to MA1 having heard noises “like pulling a balloon” in the dark (presumably when it was used during sex).

2) a complete condom from MA2 (Anna Ardin), looking used (there’s a photograph) and with a sizeable cut or tear at the tip. This condom has no DNA, male or female, on it at all.

According to Guy Sim, both of these were collected by junior policewoman Sara Wennergren from Anna Ardin’s apartment at 6.30pm-ish on Saturday, 21 August 2010. Sara had taken Anna Ardin’s witness statement by telephone earlier that same day, at around 11.30am.

Now we know from the EAW and Ardin’s statement that the main basis of her allegations is that Assange deliberately tore that condom during sex. We also know – from the lab report – that the condom she handed in as evidence of this “crime” cannot have been in contact with any part of any person’s body, let alone used for sex between two people – even someone touching it with their bare hands would leave some DNA so she has clearly gone to some trouble to fake this evidence.

What I am questioning is:

1) why is there only a piece of condom retrieved from MA1? There is nothing in Sophie Wilen’s witness statement about a condom being damaged (at least not in the formal statement to Irmeli Krans that has been used to request Assange’s extradition).

2) why is Sophie Wilen’s piece of condom collected from Anna Ardin? Guy Sim suggests this may be because Wilen was carrying it around to see if it would help with HIV testing but, to me, that only raises further questions:

– why would a woman cut a piece out of a used condom – rather than take the whole used condom – to get a hospital HIV test? Surely it’s more sensible to take the whole condom to get a decent-sized semen sample for antibodies testing?

– if getting this piece of condom tested during her hospital visit was Wilen’s intention, why wasn’t this evidence requisitioned from the hospital instead of from Ardin? How likely is it that a hospital could or would do a HIV test on it (very, very quickly considering the timescales we’re talking about here) and then give it back to Wilen? There is no documentation of the results of a HIV test in the police protocol which leaked five months later, in late January 2011. Why not, if a HIV test was done?

– at what point did Wilen take this piece of condom to Ardin’s apartment? Thursday 19th August? Friday 20th August? Before or after her visit to the hospital? Before or after the visit to Klara police station? If before, why did she leave it there while the two women went to the police without it? (Remember, it wasn’t collected from Ardin until the following day.)

4) Is Ardin responsible in some way for producing this MA1 condom piece, ie, did she deliberately tear a whole condom left in her care by Wilen, (using gloves as she must have done to produce her own false evidence) to somehow match her own allegations more closely? If so, why would she do this? The basis of Wilen’s allegation (well, the one we know of from her formal statement to Irmeli Krans) is of sleepy sex WITHOUT a condom.

5) When, and from whom, did policeman Mats Gehlin learn that MA1 (Sophie Wilen) heard noises in the dark which sounded like a condom being “pulled like a balloon”? Does this note reflect someone reporting that a condom was damaged somehow? Gehlin’s notes indicate that the piece of condom was found under the bed on the “suspect’s side”. Does that note reflect an allegation that the MA1 piece of condom is the result of deliberate damage by the suspect?

– Did he hear about this from Ardin when MA1’s piece of condom was handed in? If so, has Sara Wennergren made a record of this conversation on the evidence requisition order when she collected it on the evening of Saturday 21 August? (There’s certainly nothing resembling Gehlin’s notes in Ardin’s witness statement taken by phone earlier that morning.)

– Or did he hear it from Linda Wassgren, or one of her colleagues at Klara police station, as she phoned around for advice about what to do about what she’d just heard from the two women who sat together to talk to her at around 4.30pm on Friday, 20 August 2010? Ardin reports that she interjected one sentence into Sophia’s story – exact words – “I believe Sophia is telling the truth because something similar happened to me”. How exactly is Ardin’s experience anything like that of Sophia’s? Sophia’s allegation involves penetration without a condom while still half asleep and Ardin’s allegations are nothing like that – where in Ardin’s statement is there any occasion where a condom wasn’t worn, where does Ardin claim sex happened while she was half-asleep? What’s “similar” about it?

Whatever Wassgren had been told “everyone agreed it was rape” and it prompted an on-duty prosecutor to issue an arrest warrant for double rape before either of the women had been formally interviewed.

Do you see why I keep picking away at this issue of the physical evidence backing Wilen’s allegations being “a piece” of condom, and how that might relate to Gehlin’s strange notes on the forensic report?

Oh dear, I’m sorry if I’m leaving you with the feeling that I’ve misunderstood your responses, and even more so if that’s leaving you feeling annoyed (even mildly). It’s perfectly obvious to me that you do know a very great deal about the case (I hadn’t assumed anything else, honest) and I appreciate very much all your questions and prompting – I find it both thought-provoking and helpful. You were exactly who I had in mind in this bit of my last post:

“I’m always open to having any gaps in my knowledge in this respect filled in – everything helps”

To reduce the misunderstanding, kindly consider and reply to the two questions I posed above taken in the context of the full paragraphs (and see also a Q in the other thread):
– “How can I encourage more of that?” (setting your mind to clear thinking)
– “Is there a way I can phrase my questions to make that more obvious?”

I’m here with some dismay that no serious investigative journalism or even collaborative groups or knowledgable persons like yourself have still to date not really made a proper go at setting down and analysing what they know and then reducing it to some form of readble document or briefing paper. Also dismayed that journalists etc are not doing the leg-work in making on the ground enquiries, FOI requests or translating material from Swedish.
Hence here I am reviewing from a current perspective my notes from 1-2 years ago. I’d really like and encourage others such as yourself to do likewise in writing what you know and further to demand the Press to perform their proper function in society.
I have no wish to take on any such role myself in their absence.

Maria Haljebo Kjellstrand, the prosecutor that arrested Assange Friday night for rape has been reported to the Swedish Parliament’s Ombudsmen of Justice for how she handled the accusations made against Assange. The president of the Swedish non-profit association, Rattssakerhetsorganisationen, Johann Binninge, that filed the complaint tells Aftonbladet that the handling of the Assange case was a catastrophy for the Swedish justice system. He continues to say that the prosecutor was not objective to the situation, she listened and acted only on the words of the women and did not bother to even try to contact the accused party. Aftonbladet was not able to reach Maria Haljebo Kjellstrand for a comment yesterday. The Ombudsmen of Justice are elected by the Swedish Parliament to ensure that public authorities and their staff comply with laws.

Also on that Sunday, retired prosecutor Sven-Erik Alhem was voicing his concerns:

It also made its way to US news agency AP:
{http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100822/ap_on_hi_te/eu_sweden_wikileaks}

By KARL RITTER, Associated Press – Sun Aug 22, 3:02 pm ET
…
A small Swedish justice watchdog group, RO, said it filed a complaint Sunday against the on-call prosecutor to the Ombudsmen of Justice, an office that investigates wrongdoing by public authorities. The complaint accused her of issuing the arrest warrant “without having enough information to make such a decision,” said Johann Binninge, the group’s chairman and founder.
…

…
Given the obvious irregularities here, which the Prosecutor’s spokespersons can themselves barely veil, “A small Swedish justice watchdog group, RO, said it filed a complaint Sunday against the on-call prosecutor to the Ombudsmen of Justice, an office that investigates wrongdoing by public authorities. The complaint accused her of issuing the arrest warrant `without having enough information to make such a decision,’ said Johann Binninge, the group’s chairman and founder.” Even a former Swedish Chief Prosecutor is demanding an explanation for the arrest order.
…

By the Tuesday, the complaint was extended to include the issue of confidentiality of arrest warrants and privacy of the accuseds. e.g.:

I notice that comments on this thread are supposed to close on 13 November. I wonder if it is possible please to leave the thread open beyond that date? A lot of people from Flashback have started posting in here and also duplicating posts from us at CM back into Flashback for them to chew over. Most of the heavy-lifting detective work on JA’s case has been done in Flashback, but in Swedish language, so this could become a great way of getting more facts out into the English-speaking world, and a great collaborative resource.

Hi Arbed. The closing date is a rolling date, and is always three (full) days after the last comment. So if people keep commenting, the date will keep moving. If it does close, let me know on another thread and I’ll re-open it.

I’ll see if I can add a better explanation of the closing date to the comments block.

“Do you see why I keep picking away at this issue of the physical evidence backing Wilen’s allegations being “a piece” of condom, and how that might relate to Gehlin’s strange notes on the forensic report?”

Thank you for your long explanation. I was largely aware of the facts from Guy Sims book but thank you for clarifying them. It is, as you say, unbelievable that a piece of condom, rather than the whole condom, was taken to the Police Station. And produced by Anna Ardin but containing Sofia Wilen’s DNA.

I have a theory on this that the condom was one that JA used on Anna Ardin. It was intact and contained sperm. The outside was cleaned and Sofia Wilen was coerced, or voluntarily, left a sample of DNA on it. To have produced the whole condom might have showed there was more than just one specimen of female DNA if the initial cleaning process had not removed it all. But it is much easier to clean the outside of small area than the whole condom. It is only a theory and there could be a legitimate reason for just taking a piece in, rather than the whole condom, but I cannot think of one. This would also fit with Sofia not mentioning a torn condom – because there never was a torn condom for either of the women.

Anna Ardin has already shown herself to be a liar and to have faked and removed evidence to fit her statement. This would make her unsuitable in court, if such a farce should ever come to court, because a good examiner would shred her various statements to pieces.

Is it possible to deliberately tear a condom? I’ve never tried, and suspect neither has Julian Assange. I suspect it is impossible and would need superhuman strength, or a tool to pierce it, or perished rubber. It does not add up.

I am reading Guy Sims’ book on Assange in Sweden. A very good read. I’m up to page 130 and have spotted three minor typos to date. I’ve made a note of these. Can anyone contact Mr Sims to pass these on please?

Hi.
Been away and also waiting to see what kind of moves mr Rudling was up to.

First, the question of Wilen and Ardin visit to the police:
They arrived 14:10 to Klara Näpo, the interrogation started approx 16:05, (but s´the office closes at 16:00hrs !)
This on a Friday during summer vacation with small staff and a lot of “customers”. No-one here in Sweden belives that these 2 girls had to sit for 2 hrs and wait, when they came to file a rape-accusation, but what happended under these 2 hrs we not sure about.

Ewa Finné: statement on Saturday, the prosecutor office rushed docs via curir to Finne´s summerhouse outside Stockholm, she read it and then faxed back here decition that it was no rape and the arrestwarrant was removed.
Papercopies at undermattan.com, se assangedocuments.

To Göran Rudling.
You still twist and now you also lie !
You were the only soly witness in this case coming to London, Sven and Birgitta was in London as expert witnesses with their background as retired judge and prosecutor, while you still are a witness in an ongoing investigation. Therefore, you had no legal right to take part of the secret papers, and this is ruled whatever you are on this planet.
The redacted paperwork that you referer to was faxed from the prosecutor office and not the police, you just match all the other paperwork at undermattan.com and you will se that several dics are from the same faxmachine with numbers that match the transmissions.

Now, try to answer these questions without twisting it around to other persons or dates:

You claim to be a witness, but there is no records if it in ANY paperwork from the police or from the leaked docs, explain this:

When you appeared in London, you statement included a specific address in Stockholm were you lived. At the same time you were unlisted by swedish IRS (Skatteverket) for 3 years in a row, they tried to reach you 3 times in a matter of your company that was up to be closed. On the given address as you stated there was a woman name Nema that was the contact press person for Swedish immigration office, that refused Assange permanent stay in Sweden, what was your status with this woman !

To answer your two questions (and the one on the other thread), don’t worry – I’m beginning to get the hang of what it is you’re looking for from me and I promise to make more effort to present things with suitable qualifiers and references. Also, that I will try to apply a more ‘scientific’ method, including possible alternative scenarios which might disprove my argument. That’s mainly what I meant by “it’s a shame we have such different approaches” – the shame is all mine because I don’t come from a scientific background so that hampers me from presenting my thoughts and propositions in a way that meets the requirements of your questions and promptings. I fear some patience and forgiveness might still be needed for a while…

I think one of my chief sins is that I assume a certain level of foreknowledge about the case and the evidence – as I have with you – so I feel less need to provide links or cite references to bits of the available evidence, because I assume the regular posters here are probably already very familiar with the material themselves.

Perhaps you’ll see that I’ve tried to take your points on board with my long post above addressed to John Goss about “the piece” of condom and what I feel its significance might be? I’ve included questions about alternative scenarios within it and (I think) it’s obvious which pieces of documentary evidence it refers to: the forensic report; Linda Wassgren’s 22 August memo; the section of Donald Bostrum’s witness statement where he describes what Ardin told him of the police visit.

I am in complete agreement with your comments about the dereliction of journalists in digging into this case.

I also had a question for you, which you didn’t answer: Would you know anything about how to go about setting up a Pirate Pad? (to facilitate online collaboration in producing that detailed timeline you suggested would be a good start)

Rather than all that messy business of cleaning the outside of a condom and coercing Wilen to substitute her DNA on it, isn’t it a much, much, simpler theory to suggest that Ardin and Wilen (in the course of their text messages between them 18th to 20th August, still under wraps) between them came up with the idea that they would both tell a story of Assange deliberately damaging a condom during sex?

In that scenario, it would be quite straightforward for Wilen to tear or cut a piece out of a used condom she found under the bed and take it to meet Ardin sometime before they went to Klara (or maybe Ardin travelled to her? Remember, Assange’s witness statement says Ardin disappeared on the Thursday night, the 19th, saying she was visiting a journalist friend and didn’t come back – overnight visit to Wilen in Enkoping? – that’s another way Wilen’s piece of condom could have ended up in Ardin’s possession); start the phone messages, relayed through Johannes Walstrom and Donald Bostrum (as set out in their witness statements), pressuring Assange to get a HIV test “or we go to the police”; visit the hospital for a “rape kit”, then off to Klara station with Ardin to get down to business…

And in that scenario the “advice about two earlier events” in which “rape was mentioned from the start” (both these are quotes from Wassgren’s 22 August memo recounting that first initial contact the women had with the police) wasn’t about HIV; it was about BOTH women (but initially Wilen) asking for advice about someone deliberately damaging condoms. What was the law about unusual ‘rapey’-type experiences such as that? Well, says Wassgren of the colleagues she consulted (including, by the way, Mats Gehlin of the Family Violence Unit), “everyone agreed it was rape”.

My proposition is that Gehlin’s notes on the forensic report accurately reflect this very first (false) story by BOTH women, who had colluded together beforehand to invent it and who BOTH tried to back this “similar story” with physical condom evidence (Ardin very much less successfully than Wilen).

I know none of this matches Wilen’s formal statement to Krans but:

a) the version of her statement dated 20 August that was released to the press is too heavily redacted to know exactly what she told Krans but we do know the uncensored version of it seen by Eva Finne got the rape arrest warrant cancelled – that’s VERY far from “everyone agreed it was rape”, so is it a fair point to wonder if it was also very far from the story that Sophia had originally told the police when she first arrived? A watered-down complaint detailing nothing criminal (as Guy Sims notes) – this would absolve her from getting into trouble (potentially, a 2-year prison sentence in Sweden) for making false allegations. And the interview is terminated anyway – unsigned – as soon as she hears the rape warrant has been issued.

b) the version dated 26 August that we think we all know as “Sophia’s story” has now been shown by Guy Sim to have been extensively revised by another hand. We can’t take this document as the “truth” about Sophia. Interestingly, though Sim shows how the revisions are purely cosmetic changes in a rambling story, signifying nothing and certainly no crime, about wandering in parks, spotting geese, etc until it reaches the section dealing with the actual “assault” (where the redactions begin in the press-released version). From this point, it’s an exercise in rewriting…

Nobody seems to like the idea of calling Wilen a liar too. I appreciate there’s more evidence available pointing to Ardin being correctly labelled as such (the deletion of the tweets, the ‘7 steps to revenge’ blog post, handing in a DNA-free condom as evidence, etc, etc) but please remember that it’s actually quite rare for two women to report the same man for rape AT THE SAME TIME. The dangers of cross-contamination (and I don’t mean simply of DNA samples on a condom) and collusion in their stories should be self-evident.

Thanks for those links to Mary Eng leaks. Oh, hahaha – well, that’s kinda, ahem, personal, isn’t it? “Since then I think I have the most fantastic penis in the world.” That sounds like our boy! Hahahahaha.

I think you’re right to be delving into Goran Rudling’s background and motivations. Mary Eng, though, I think is less of a worry. From what I’ve heard in Occupy, she made quite a nuisance of herself among Wikileaks’ supporters – always blagging them into putting her up in their homes on the basis of her ‘poverty’ but seemingly still able to spend conspicious sums on frivolous items for herself… They all ended up feeling used. No wonder she became very unpopular very quickly and people started trying to ‘out’ her and warn others off. Personally, I don’t believe she was ever a Wikileaks insider (it sounds like that’s what she’s trying to portray herself as to Goran in these emails). The idea that Wikileaks would have anything at all to do with her is pretty ridiculous – they’d only have to take one look at her braingarbage blog to see that she’s barking mad. I really can’t see them welcoming anyone like that as an ‘insider’.

Arbed, I’m pretty sure Krans wrote Wilen’s statement for her, or at least the bulk of it, putting words into her mouth. Krans is much more of a politician than policewoman. It’s a gut feeling but I trust my gut feelings. She altered (spiced up might be a better way of putting it) the original statement. She has no morals.

I am with you too that Wilen could be a liar. And if she is she’s a better one than Ardin. I have suspected complicity between the two women from the start. It is a typical honey-trap scenario. Or it may just be a genuine case of revenge. Wilen seems to be a groupie. They used to say “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned’ and Ardin’s ‘Seven steps to revenge on men who dump women’ seems to corroborate the saying.

As to the condom, you mention that ‘it would be quite straightforward for Wilen to tear or cut a piece out of a used condom she found under the bed and take it to meet Ardin . . .’ Cut, yes. Tear, I don’t think so. I’ve seen strong men tear telephone directories, but to tear a slippy condom would I think be pretty nigh impossible while making love, and not so easy while not making love even with both hands.

Not sure about Krans doing the rewriting. For one, she was locked out of the case file on the Durtva computer by Linda Wassgren between at least 23 August and 26 August, when she was ordered to “create a new case file and input it with ‘the necessary changes'” by Mats Gehlin. Krans took advantage of the fact that Gehlin was based in another building, and therefore not directly supervising her, to add notes of her objections to doing as she’d been ordered to the bottom of the new file. These notes are also translated at the bottom of Rixstep’s translation of Wilen’s statement. They appear on the original Swedish document too.

Also, what do you make of Guy Sim’s reproducing that email exchange between Gehlin and Claus Borgstrom on the morning of 26 August 2010, in which he sends Borgstrom two attached pdfs? Sim thinks those pdfs are the censored and the uncensored versions of the statement Wilen gave on 20 August, the idea being that as the censored version had already been released to the press Borgstrom would need both versions to know where exactly he was safe to make his alterations (ie within the heavily redacted latter part). Personally, I agree with Sim and think it’s Borgstrom who rewrote the statement. He’d already been engaged as Plaintiff’s (and possibly Plaintiffs’) Counsel by, I think, 22 or 23 August. If Wilen had watered down her original claims (once she’d said enough to get Assange arrested) to avoid potential criminal charges for false allegations made formally, she may not have been happy for Borgstrom to up the ante again on her statement, but Ardin most certainly would’ve been. Once Eva Finne cancelled the arrest warrant Assange (having seen the uncensored 20 August statement) and confirmed that she could see no crime in Wilen’s statement, this left Ardin in the position of being the only complainant legally liable for the allegations made against Assange.

Yes, a cut would be much easier for Wilen to do, no doubt. I had always assumed that for Ardin to produce the ‘evidence’ she did, she’d have to have worn gloves and stretched an unused condom straight from the packet over a dildo, but probably needed to take one glove off to piece the latex with a fingernail. If the second test of the “something” the lab found on the first results DID find a trace of mDNA (not conclusive as the second test was requested by Gehlin but the results of that test are NOT incuded in the leaked police protocol – date of leak late January 2011), I understand that the presence of mDNA when there is no chromosonal DNA present in a sample means that mDNA can only have come from hair or nails.

“I notice that comments on this thread are supposed to close on 13 November. I wonder if it is possible please to leave the thread open beyond that date? A lot of people from Flashback have started posting in here and also duplicating posts from us at CM back into Flashback for them to chew over. Most of the heavy-lifting detective work on JA’s case has been done in Flashback, but in Swedish language, so this could become a great way of getting more facts out into the English-speaking world, and a great collaborative resource.”

Indeed, I had hoped for this international interchange of info all along, and am glad my artful plan has started to bear some fruit. One has to keep posting something every three days to keep these few threads on Assange open, so might you or others keep an eye on that too? (It would be nice if it could be 8 days rather than 3!)

thanks kindly, I was going to ask you if the spam load might permit that more generally now with the filter?
Why 8 days not 7? Then someone who checks only once a week is not shut out if they visit say 8am Sat., and then 10pm the following Sat., since I suspect it may be taking the closing time from the hour:min of the last posting.

sorry – please be patient – as I said (8 Nov, 5:51 pm), “I’m still back at catching up with details to …”, and I was asking for your suggestions how I can phrase my questions more clearly, indicating which of the three (or more?) ways I mean them, as I’d like to express myself more clearly. How would you phrase those 3 sorts of questions yourself?

As to using other sites, on the balance of issues with privacy, censorship, permanence, ad-free, and so on I am loath to use anything like scribd or google docs etc. More so if it is propietary webified software, not something open source which can be self hosted, or run on one’s own desktop. These are like fast food or coffee franchises; even if it is free, I don’t like the design nor the side effects of the ingredients and the CCTV at the door.

I am more the slow food type … ideally I would be setting up my own little brasserie like place to host wikis and timelines and forums or collaborative whatever, though behind the scenes it might resemble a tardis

So, given that this site has some aspects right, I’m for simplicity and agreeing on a format and seeing how well it works here to toss a few initial versions back and forth.

I’m also the cash type, so getting hold of this book is a bit of a challenge…

As I understand it (maybe you know better), in case it is exactly 7x24h from the last post time, then the problem I described occurs, so then 8 gives the required leeway. So that is why I suggested 8, not 7.

To be sure of other scenarious like weekend day to weekend day needs 9, or Friday – week off – Monday needs 10, but I leave it to you to decide what you want to cater to and to see how the spam problem works out.

As to hypotheses, you are considering different ideas on the character or motives of SW, so you can give them labels, and then set out the differences in the stories and see how consistent they are with known facts and inferences. Even include straw-woman options. This may help readers to set aside their disklike to see her as a liar. e.g.

Arbed, you might be right about Claus Borgstrom doing the rewriting. Whoever did it there were changes that took place designed to portray Julian Assange in a bad light. But Krans’ attitude throughout had been one of trying to make a rape case against Assange when Wilen had only allegedly gone to try and persuade Julian to take a STD test. I cant’ argue with your logic concerning chromosonal DNA and mDNA because I don’t know enough about the subject.

As Snap writes SW is a complex person for a ‘shy’ type. I’ve never met her but she does seem, from Sims book, to bathe in the light of the stars, has American connections, especially the boyfriend. I still think the best thing that can be done is for a separate legal inquiry into the way the Swedish police and prosecution service have conspired to get Assange back into Sweden. They would have to show their hand. Borgstrom can’t keep saying there is evidence without showing what that evidence is. Their hand, in my opinion, needs forcing.

Then it will be shown that this is just a political plot. And not a very clever one. Could Guy Sims provide a few copies of his book in paperback form for people like Snap. Print on demand books can be ordered through bookstores, or directly from the author.

snap wrote: “So it comes down to a phone call from the police to the duty prosecutor, with no written records at that stage? However, shouldn’t the duty prosecutor be clued up on police cutting corners and be asking to be sure there was sufficient probable grounds?”

Yes, that is exactly how bad it is. Linda Wassgren, I presume, must have explained that she had talked to both women, that she had spoken to Mats Gehlin on Famlly violence and to the station officer, Johan Hallberg. She also made one or more other phone calls, of which we know nothing. And “everybody was in agreemnet that it was rape”.

According to Irmeli Krans’ statement she was blocked from contact with the Duty Attorney by Wassgren. Wassgren, not Krans, plays the key role in getting the duty attorney to take her decision.

Expressen, and Niklas Svensson in particular, has made a great deal to blow up the role of Irmeli Krans on that evening. I think that might be a deliberate attempt to conceal what was actually happening. The Swedish public does not know that the decision to arrest Assange was taken before the formal interrogation of Sofia was finished and before the formal interrogation of Anna had even begun. The RO appeal to the Swedish Justitieombudsman did not mention this, they were not aware of that then.

Snap: Yes, I could try that SW1, SW2, etc classification system (can you suggest a similar simple breakdown for the various ‘personas/motives’ of Ardin?) but I’m a little worried that it will quickly become confusing for any occasional readers who don’t understand what the original classifications meant. You’ve also asked that I repost some of my comments on this thread onto a more recent one, to help keep it open. It’s constraints on my time (I’m a freelance worker so my hours are all over the place and not particularly predictable) I’m afraid that prevent me from doing as much as I’d like to help build a community of interested researchers working on the Assange case. Nothing to stop you lifting bits from my comments here which particularly interest you and requoting them in other threads, of course. If you’d like to do that, you’re welcome – I have no objection.

John Goss: Totally agree with you about there needing to be some sort of ‘push back’ legal enquiry to force the Swedish authorities to reveal how bankrupt their case is. See Salander’s comment about the RO appeal to the Swedish Justitieombudsman not even including the fact the women’s statements hadn’t even been taken before an arrest warrant was issued. I wonder if there’s any possibility of getting the RO appeal re-opened on this basis?

Regarding getting a copy of Sim’s book to Snap (who’s preference is for cash transactions and therefore he can’t download it online), I have the book in pdf format and can easily email it to Snap but that would mean Snap would need to leave an email address publicly on this thread. It’s possible to create a temporary one specifically for this purpose. Alternatively, perhaps Jon the Mod might be prepared to act as go-between?

Salander: Thanks, that’s a very good factual summary you’ve posted. Please keep posting here at Craig’s blog – it’s so useful for us that Swedish-speaking people familiar with the Assange case can help fill in the gaps in our knowledge. Thanks again.

I see your comments at 10 Nov 6.48pm about some of the objections you have to proprietary software and I think Pirate Pad may be the answer. From the link below it appears it’s a free, open source and very basic text editor. It doesn’t require any subscription or even registration, so I think all that’s needed is to download it onto your PC and it’s good to go. It says all contributions appear chronologically so I haven’t really thought through how multiple contributors/editors would add new bits of information into a timeline at the appropriate spot as they become known, or correct/update any erroneous entries made by others. But here, have a look and tell me what you think:

thanks for returning and picking up on one of my questions to highlight that conclusion. Perhaps someone else can contrast that with the typical process in UK for a comparable situation – presumably that involves a duty sessions magistrate.
May one also presume, in the normal case in Sweden, such an arrest decision by a duty prosecutor is not temporary but would have remained in force without any further review?

It is not just the Swedish public, I’d say most reasonably informed public everywhere do not know any such details; the general public at large mostly hear the TV headlines and just think it is a case of two aggrieved women crying rape and wanting justice for personal harm.

Yes, I recall wondering at the time, given their stance, why were Expressen atacking Krans, but put it down to tabloid media stirring tactics. Increasingly I speculate that CB is placed as an unnamed source for them and The Guardian too.

Chipping away at these details and times does seem to be gradually revealing a clearer understanding, so any further input from you or anyone else on the other questions I posed are most welcome.

[Jon, that looks like an edit request 2x in the 3rd para of Salander (9:43 pm)]

I don’t recall saying myself that SW is complex; I still see her as a shy type, but Arbed keeps asserting unqualified statements that SW lied to JA, or that her coursework in Performance and Video Art makes her an actress, so I was proposing some labels for hypothetical different SW characters she can use to test out such assertions, in a self-contained piece. At the moment, I’m not really looking into SW.

Arbed, I don’t see it as a classification or about multiple personas. A simpler way may be to just refer to them with prefixes such as “shy-SW”, “liar-SW”, or whatever you choose. What hypothetical versions of AA do you see?

Arbed, actually I was asking you to have the grace to place your response to one of my questions I asked in the other thread in place there as a conversation, since you had thread hopped it over here into this busy place. Now that Jon has kindly extended the closing times, that is less of a pressure now; it would be nice to have some appreciation for my efforts keeping this open so we are now here at all with some Swedes too, and unravelling your assumptions with a patience that you confuse for my having time to spare.

If that book is worth the trouble and is in a DRM-free pdf not locked to a machine ID, that is kind of you to offer. There may be some sort of one-time email to use; then it is a question of IP privacy.
On a similar note, have those CPS emails shown up as a straight pdf somewhere else than on scribd?

Where does the information that Wilen’s condom was picked up from Ardin’s home come from, originally? Is this new information, based on new sources, from Guy Sims? It seems less likely in my view, but on that point I am merely speculating.

In Chapter 37 of his book (pages 93-95 especially), Guy Sim makes a good case that even the words “you better don’t have HIV” are a later addition to Wilen’s statement by another person. He does a line-by-line comparison between the censored 20 August version and the 26 August version to reach this conclusion. Apart from this phrase, there is nothing else in SW’s witness statement with Krans about HIV or any specific reference to fear of STDs.

Hanna Rosquist’s statement (page 110 of Sim’s book): The date this statement was taken is 8th September 2010 – long after the events to which it relates. Hanna says she is a childhood friend of Sophia’s so it is likely that they will have had more than one conversation about the incident before Hanna gives her statement to the police. In fact, it is clear from Hanna’s statement itself that it is based on more than one conversation. Hanna confirms she first heard from Sophia that she was unhappy about having unprotected sex in a phone or text message on the morning of 17th August 2010 while Assange was still at Sophia’s flat. Later in the same statement, although it is not explicitly stated that it is based on more than one conversation, Hanna says:

“Hanna said that Sofia wanted Assange to be tested for venereal diseases. Sofia had been tested but it would take a very long time before she would get the result. It would go much faster if Assange went and got tested.
Hanna knows nothing about what happened when Sofia reported the event to the police.” – this implies a conversation between Wilen and Rosquist sometime between SW getting a HIV test at the hospital (exact time/date anyone??) and 2pm on 20 August (or, alternatively, that Hanna’s last sentence here is a fib). This conversation could, of course, have happened later than that – we don’t know.

and

“Hanna said that she had seen in the newspaper that Sofia apparently knew the other woman and she had asked Sofia about that. Sofia had answered, “yes, I do now, but not before the seminar,” – this implies a conversation between Wilen and Rosquist sometime after 21st August 2010 as that is the earliest date of newspaper reports.

So, Rosquist’s testimony seems to be based on at least three conversations between her and Wilen. Clearly there is potential here for Sophie Wilen to have introduced new elements into the story via her friend Hanna Rosquist’s testimony (or help “lay the groundwork” ahead of going to the police once she’d chatted with Ardin…).

Katarina Svensson’s testimony (page 111). The date of this interrogation is 13th September 2010 – again, long after the events to which it relates and, as one of Wilen’s work colleagues, there was plenty of opportunity for the two to talk prior to Svensson’s statement to police. Katarina makes two comments within the statement which give clues as to when Sophia told Katarina about her experiences: “Later, when they were at work, Sofia told her what had happened” and “Sofia was forced to take a sick-leave day from work because she did not want to leave Assange by himself in the apartment as she did not know him”. This implies Sophia returned to work on 18th August 2010 after a day’s sick leave and Katarina’s knowledge of events is basically what Sophia told her on that date. But it COULD be later than 18th August – we just don’t know because “later, at work” could mean anytime. If it did take place on 18th August, there was definitely also at least one later conversation between them before Katarina gave her statement to police – because “The witness said that Sofia had not felt well after the event and this was intensified by the attention in the mass media”. Obviously, this remark post-dates newspaper coverage of the case. So, again, there were at least one opportunity for Wilen to revise her testimony subsequent to her formal Krans interview via the “witness” statement of a close friend.

Although Katarina does state “already before this event Sofia had said that she did not have sex without a condom. This was to protect her from sickness and pregnancy”, Guy Sim makes the point that it is nowhere mentioned in the police protocol that Wilen’s ex-boyfriend, with whom she never had unprotected in more than two years, ie. was “phobic” about it, had lived in San Francisco (gay capital of the world) between 2002 and, I think, 2006 or 2007. This is a crucial point. Wilen had also visited San Francisco herself so she would also know what the place is like, and this puts a wholly different light on her insistence on using condoms with Seth Benson throughout her relationship with him. Sensible precaution rather than outright phobia?

Joakim Wilen’s statement (page 141). Statement given 6th October 2010. Long after events… Joakim’s earliest knowledge of events is when Sophia bumps into Joakim at the ICA shop at 8am on 17th August while Assange is still in her apartment. Although he says she seemed a little “shaken” (or “jolted”), he also mentions “Sofia was exhilarated” [can also be translated as ‘in high spirits’] and that she invited him back to her apartment to meet Assange: “She asked Joakim if he would like to meet Julian Assange, but he did not want to”. This is a very odd offer to make if you are unhappy about the behaviour of a visitor. It certainly doesn’t sound as if Wilen is asking for her brother’s support in dealing with an uncomfortable situation or potentially dangerous guest; more like showing off a notch on her bedpost. Granted, this was before she returned to her bed to doze and the alleged unprotected incident, but there’s certainly nothing to suggest any problems. She tells Joakim it feels “strange” having Assange there, but I suspect it does feel “strange” to have a world-famous man sharing your domestic space after all your efforts at star-fucking have paid off and been successful. Then:

“The next time that Joakim heard anything from Sofia was in a text message that she sent to him” – date and time of text message not given so all we know for sure is that Sophia contacted Joakim at an unspecified later time to complain that Assange was “not so pleasant” (or “agreeable” or “nice”). Nothing at that point about unprotected sex, or HIV phobia, or “while she slept” or “against her will”.

Then: “Joakim did not find out what had happened until Sofia had gone to
the police and it had been in the newspapers. He got to know what had happened FROM SOFIA (my emphasis) and his mother. His mother said that Julian had had sex with Sofia without a condom and AGAINST HER WILL (my emphasis) while she slept”. This implies a date sometime after 21st August because of the reference to the newspaper coverage.

Ditto Joakim must have heard from Sophia at some time AFTER the morning of 20th August that “Sofia had also said that she had talked to Julian, that he should get himself tested, and that Julian had replied that he did not have time to get tested” because Assange’s statement (and I think Bostrum’s and Walstrom’s too) says he spoke to Wilen about HIV tests while she was at the hospital, supposedly getting one done (anyone got any documentation from the hospital to verify they actually did do a HIV test? – otherwise all we’ve got to prove that she specifically went to the hospital to get one done is Wilen’s own statements to friends and family after the event). And “Sofia had later said that she did not want to report Julian but just wanted him to be tested for diseases” potentially comes from a third, even later, conversation between Joakim and Sophia.

All this again, I think, suggests that Sophia could be changing her story via “witness” friends and family subsequent to the statement she gave to Irmeli Krans, or alternatively setting up her story subsequent to her first contact with Ardin prior to going to the police.

Seth Benson (ex-boyfriend) statement (page 142). Date of interrogation is 22nd October. No mention of the fact that he had lived for many years in San Francisco as a plausible reason why Wilen might be so concerned about unprotected sex during the course of their relationship. Benson states how he was contacted by Wilen out of the blue several months after their relationship had ended: “Seth said that he became aware of what had happened when Sofia sent him a text message asking if she could phone him. He was somewhat bewildered because they had not contacted one another for some months. When Sofia phoned she IMMEDIATELY (my emphasis) asked Seth what he thought of WikiLeaks and Julian Assange… Then SOFIA SAID THAT SHE HAD BEEN RAPED (my emphasis) by Julian Assange through him having begun to have sex with her when she was asleep and that he did not use a condom” – no date for this text and/or phone call is given so all we can know is Sophia unexpectedly contacted an old boyfriend specifically to talk about her experience with Assange and say that she had been “raped”, “asleep” and “no condom” was used. This text/call could have happened at any point between the morning of 17th August and 22nd October.

Statement of Maria Thorn (page 143). Date of interrogation 27th October, so once again long after events… Maria is a close work colleague of Wilen and they clearly talk frequently so the potential is again clear for Wilen to retro-revise her formal witness statement with Krans via her friend’s testimony.

A lot of the conversations mentioned in Maria Thorn’s statement appear to be subsequent to the police visit on 20th August, and involve mention of revenge, getting money for the story, etc – albeit Thorn is saying those texts and phone calls were somehow “only joking” or “supportive” comments. What the statement does make clear is that “Marie did not hear about the actual assault until THE DAY AFTER, or perhaps it was TWO DAYS AFTER, and got the impression that Sofia was very worried about the possibility of being infected” – so at the earliest either on 18th August, or possibly the 19th August after Wilen had first contacted Anna Ardin. What’s the latest on exact time Wilen is supposed to have first contacted Ardin – 18th or 19th???

The one comment in Thorn’s statement which does indicate a worry on Wilen’s part about HIV prior to Wilen reporting the “assault” is where Wilen texted her in the middle of the night (16th August): “That she had to go to be tested on account of his long foreplay”. This, to me, sounds like the annoyance of someone accustomed to regular testing rather than a “HIV-phobic” or traumatised newbie.

Does anyone have any further information to help fine-tune this analysis of how it emerged that Sophie Wilen had “only ever wanted to get him tested for HIV” and how the overall picture of her “testimony” (across the Wassgren interview, the Krans 20 August statement, the Krans heavily amended 26 August statement and the hearsay “evidence” of what Wilen’s friends and family HEARD FROM HER (excuse my shouting that bit;) has been built up?

Yes, it is in Guy Sim’s book that both women’s condom evidence was collected from Anna Ardin’s apartment by Sara Wennerblom. See my posts above 7 Nov 10.01pm and 8 Nov 7.49pm for more details.

Here’s what Guy Sim says about the requisition of the condom evidence (on page 38 of the pdf version of his book):

Also on 21 August, the police compiled a requisition report on two condoms. This has the same diary number as the rest of the investigation. The available copy of the two-page report has been censored, having being released as a result of a request, probably from a newspaper, so much of the information has been blanked out. The requisition was ordered by Chief Prosecutor Eva Finné and executed by Police Assistant Sara Wennerblom. The piece of condom from Sofia Wilén is given the designation 2010-0201-BG20840-1, the only text not blanked out is “Produced.” The condom from Anna Ardin has the same designation except that the final digit is -2 instead of -1. The only text not blanked out is “… after enquiry by the police.” The piece of condom from Sofia Wilén was in fact produced by Anna Ardin, which means that Sofia Wilén must have given it to her. As detailed below, it is evident that Sofia Wilén must have been carrying this piece of condom around in case it helped establish whether Assange had HIV, because that was Sofia Wilén’s sole preoccupation;
therefore she evidently had no intention of giving it to the police.
The requisition assignment was ‘executed’ by Sara Wennerblom at 18.12 (6.12pm) on 21 August for both condoms. As noted above, Police Assistant Sara Wennerblom had interrogated Anna Ardin by phone that day, ending at 12.20pm, From completion of the interrogation to completion of the requisition report was an interval of five hours and 52 minutes, which suggests that Sara Wennerblom went to Anna Ardin‘s apartment and fetched the two condoms from her. Anna Ardin is unlikely to have taken them to the
police in that period because she was busy giving her interview to the tabloid newspaper Aftonbladet.

If there’s any information you have which either substantiates Sim’s claim, or contradicts it, I’d be very grateful if you could post it here in this blog. Thanks.

What should be borne in mind, of course, when reading my very long review of what Sophia has told her “witnesses” about matters of unprotected sex and HIV, and when she has said these things to them, there is absolutely nothing about her having told any of them that she’d cut a piece out of a used condom and that she intended to use it to get his semen tested for the presence of HIV, or of giving that condom piece to the other woman (or to the police), or of having heard noises like “pulling a balloon” in the dark when Assange had used a condom, as indicated by Mats Gehlin’s notes on the forensic lab report. Why not?

She spoke to Hanna Rosquist and her brother Joakim specifically about having been tested for HIV herself and wanting Assange to be tested also – why doesn’t she mention anything about the piece of condom for that purpose? Why not mention it to Seth Benson – who’s had previous experience of getting HIV tests with her? Why doesn’t Sophie Wilen’s piece of condom evidence feature in ANY of these conversations? Why has she given it to Anna Ardin instead of the hospital or the police?

Here is the email correspondence between Mats Gehlin and Claus Borgstrom on the morning of 26 August 2010, printed in Guy Sim’s book (page 23). It’s not on this page but somewhere in the book Sim draws attention to the fact that four lines up from the bottom here it says “attached files” (ie plural)

Thursday 26 August
On 26 August Police Inspector Mats Gehlin contacted Claes Borgström by e-mail. The e-mails were reproduced in Flashback. Here they are, in translation.

[email]mats-e.gehlin@police.se[/email]
2010 08 26 09:17
To: [email]claes.borgstrom@lawoffice.se[/email]
Subject: Test
Please reply to this so that I know I have got to the right place.
Kind regards
Mats Gehlin
Detective Inspector

Briefly on your question at the end of (3:14 pm), my take is still as I posted on 4 Oct:

Continuing on researching the “we only wanted to have him tested” narrative:

I have been tracking down when this first appeared in the media, as discussed earlier, and have it back as far as early on the 24th Aug 2010. More on that in a longer post in future.

It would help to know if there were any earlier references in Swedish mainstream media on the 23rd or 22nd of Aug 2010. (Indeed did it appear in Swedish mainstream media on the 24th either?) Perhaps Aftonbladet?

Does anyone who reads Swedish want to check those few days in a few such papers online to be certain.

from Arbed’s 4:13 pm extract, I see Guy Sim has lots of tenuous inferences, “suspects”, “unlikely”, “was busy…”, (is it established somewhere when exactly she gave the Aftonbladet interview, and that it was not say CB on her behalf?) and readings of dates on documents, so personally based on that I do not read it as an established fact, and it is Guy Sims who is doing the speculating

Please don’t be confused by the fact that I am reproducing only small excerpts from a 150-page book. Guy Sim establishes the exact times of Anna Ardin’s interview with Aftonbladet on 21 August 2010 beyond any doubt in another chapter. Likewise, he gives lots of evidence across the book to substantiate other matters which might, at first glance, appear to be speculative.

Would you like to give me an email address so I can send you my pdf copy of the book? Or let me know if you decide to ask Jon the Mod whether he’d be prepared to give me a ‘moderator’s email’ so he can then forward it to you (he’ll have both our email addresses, of course)?

My take, looking at the Swedish version in the undermattan docs, is that MG sent CB one file PM.pdf in the email of Aug 26 9:41, which is the day before he sent his letter to demand the case be re-examined.

Ah, does the undermattan version also say “attached files” rather than “attached file”? Guy Sim does definitely think there were two pdfs – but could he be mistaken in this? I’m pasting in below his conclusions on the changes made to Wilen’s statement that Irmeli Krans input to Durtva on 26 August. This chunk is from page 96 of his book, so please bear in mind there’s much much more on individual changes made to the document (eg, around Wilen’s very first contact with Ardin, how she came to hear about Assange’s seminar, etc) in the preceding pages.

Conclusions on the changes made to the interrogation with Sofia Wilén
Eva Finné, an experienced Chief Prosecutor, received the 20/8 2010 version and dismissed all the suspicions against Assange. This suggests that the serious accusations, from the heading “The assault” and some text under it, were not present in the 20/8 version which she read, but were subsequently inserted into the 26/8 version. The interrogation part covers five pages in its original Swedish version. The 26/8 changes to the first three pages are minor and cosmetic, giving the impression of a clean-up operation. The reader who perseveres in comparing the two versions, a slow task, does not encounter substantial changes until page four, if he gets that far. They are on parts that were blanked out in the 20/8 version and thus very difficult to detect. In summary, three pages of minor, cosmetic alterations followed by substantial well-hidden changes on page four. For example, in her submission to the Svea Court of Appeal dated 24 November 2010, in connection with her request for the arrest of Julian Assange, Marianne Ny states:

“Rape 17 August 2010 (Item 5):
“The complainant Sofia Wilén slept when Julian Assange forced himself into her and only when his penis was in her vagina did she awake.” This is clearly based on the text that was inserted on 26/8 under the heading “The assault.” Under Swedish law a witness is not required to sign a statement, but has it read back to them. The statement was not read back to Sofia Wilén so she never approved it. The police DurTvå Word program had a built-in automatic date and time system that prevented the manipulated 26/8 version being given the date and time of the original 20/8 interrogation. Irmeli Krans did not expect this complication, so wrote a disclaimer claiming that it was not her idea to manipulate the text. Had the DurTvå Word system not had this function, the fact that the text had been doctored would have been much more difficult to detect. The insertion of male slang [Sim details this in preceding pages] in the text suggests that at least some of the manipulation of the text was directed by a man. The ungrammatical phrase in English suggests that his English was not very good. The fact that it is claimed that both women used the highly unusual term “the glans” in fingering Julian Assange for unprotected sex suggests a common denominator. So did the author of the “necessary changes” in Sofia Wilén’s interrogation also advise Anna Ardin what to tell the police in her interrogation? The wording of Police Inspector Irmeli Krans’ disclaimer in the 26/8 version indicates that the “necessary changes” were typed in using a reference document, not pasted from a data file. The changes are too substantial to have been written on a paper copy of the 20/8 version, therefore there should be (or should have been) a document of the “necessary changes” As this document was used for an official purpose it is (or was) an official document and any member of the public in Sweden should have the right to request a copy of it. Some spelling mistakes in the 20/8 version were corrected in the 26/8 version, some were not. All this suggests that the author of the necessary changes” was not very computer savvy, and thus likely to be of middle age or older (assuming that most younger professional people nowadays are computer-literate). If so, the clues so far indicate a man who uses slang, whose command of the English language is not very good, who is an expert at manipulating evidence, who is not computer literate and who is middle aged or older.

In her application to the Svea Court of Appeal, dated 24 November 2010, Marianne Ny states: “During the preliminary investigation that has been conducted, Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilén were interrogated several times.” For each woman there is only one interrogation document in the published sets, so there is unlikely to be more than one such document. When they went to the Klara sub-police station on 20 August they were interviewed by Inspector Linda Wassgren: “I then of course chose to talk with each of the women separately and asked them to tell me the details of what they had experienced.” She did not record what they said. So that makes two interrogations. But the word “several” means more than two (in Swedish as well as in English, “flertal”). Was Sofia Wilén interviewed by this (conjectured) man of middle age or older, and if so did he compose the “necessary changes” document, including his own embellishments? On 25 August 2010, Eva Finné finally closed the case against Julian Assange. The following day, 26 August, Police Inspector Mats Gehlin contacted lawyer Claes Borgström by e-mail at 9.17am. After receiving a confirmation reply from Claes Borgström, Mats Gehlin sent Claes Borgström an e-mail with PDF files attached. Were the PDF files the censored and uncensored versions of the 20/8 interrogation of Sofia Wilén? Irmeli Krans began making the “necessary changes” to Sofia Wilén’s interrogation at 2.43pm that day, approximately five hours after the PDF documents had been sent to Claes Borgström. The previous day, 25 August, after it became known that Eva Finné had discontinued the case, Police Inspector Irmeli Krans had written in her Facebook, “Scandal in every newspaper and news bulletin. But our dear, eminent and exceedingly competent [Social Democrat lawyer] Claes Borgström will hopefully bring a little order!”

All the “necessary changes” that incriminate Julian Assange are in the 19 percent of text that was blanked out in the censored 20/8. If some of them had been in the 81 percent of legible text, the manipulation would have been apparent to anyone comparing the censored 20/8 with 26/8. Only the censored 20/8 was available to the public. The success of this strategy is apparent in the fact that it has remained a well-kept secret for two years. The fact that the incriminating “necessary changes” are in the blanked out 21 percent cannot be accidental, they are too targeted. So the author of the “necessary changes” must have worked from two documents, the uncensored 20/8 and the censored 20/8. Apart from prosecutor Eva Finné, it seems that no-one outside the police had the
uncensored 20/8. So the author most probably received the uncensored 20/8, and presumably also the censored 26/8, from the police. The most probable way for the police to send these two documents to the author would be as PDFs attached to an e-mail.

On 1 September 2010, Chief Prosecutor Marianne Ny resurrected the case and justified this on the basis of the transcripts, including the 26/8 (doctored) version of the interrogation of Sofia Wilén. Marianne Ny’s decision is set out in a document signed by her and headed (in Swedish) “Decision on Review of Case” (AM 2010/5245). “In my examination of the case I conclude that there is reason to assume that crimes under the heading of public prosecution have been committed. Against the background of that set out in the documents of the case at present a relevant act shall be considered to be rape.” “Documents of the case at present” on 1 September clearly meant the 26/8 version. Was Marianne Ny aware of the fact the 20/8 version and the 26/8 version were not identical? Julian Assange’s lawyer, Björn Hurtig, was clearly unaware of it, because in his appeal document to the Svea Court of Appeal dated 19 November 2010 opposing the arrest order of Julian Assange) he quotes the subheading “The assault” and the paragraph under it, including “he had pulled on the condom only over the glans,” “she came to, feeling him pushing into her” and “You better don’t have HIV.” Marianne Ny was slow in providing the Sofia Wilén interrogation (26/8 version) to Assange’s lawyers.

Is it worth my time to explain this? I will need some help with a couple of lines of Swedish, and need to write clearly with reference to the material, as I have no wish to get drawn into tiresome arguments with the trolls. I was only referring to the apparent interpretation of the MG emails; these other allegations you put above are too much to read for now, but seem to show he has a theory and is then clutching at straws to support it.

– Has Guy Sim established exactly which program was used to print the MG emails?

In the meantime, if you want some datapoints, take a look at whatever email programs you can view and see how they present the header line (none/singlular/plural) for different sample emails with zero, one, two or more (.pdf) attachments and make a note together with the program name and version.

I have always hoped that someone would by now have produced an English translation of these FOI documents, as Rixstep did for the earlier ones. I’m getting the picture now that Guy Sim’s book is largely based on these recent documents at undermattan etc.
– Has he any other new sources he has obtained himself?
– Does he give his qualifications or affiliations? (even in reading Swedish)

I believe it leads to a better understanding to work from the sources than to fill one’s head with appealing embellished stories or “facts” that are mere speculations, and to then have to work hard to clear it out.

To be positive, I hope it prompts people to better document and first translate the new FOI documents.

“Ewa Finné: statement on Saturday, the prosecutor office rushed docs via curir to Finne´s summerhouse outside Stockholm, she read it and then faxed back here decition that it was no rape and the arrestwarrant was removed.How d
Papercopies at undermattan.com, se assangedocuments.”

Perhaps you had seen my question:

“If Eva Finne was on vacation (was she?), then how did she come to be called in to sort it out?”

I’m more or less aware of the courier and faxing on the Saturday. I was asking about the official procedural steps that lead to her being involved in the case at all.
– Did she intervene on her own authority? Or, did someone else call her back from holiday?

As I have since written:

“May one also presume, in the normal case in Sweden, such an arrest decision by a duty prosecutor is not temporary but would have remained in force without any further review?”

– What is your take on this?

(To all:) If that is normally so, then if indeed there was a grand plan, then when analysing, people need to remember this unanticipated U-turn.

Sorry, but unless you’ve actually read Guy Sim’s book yourself, your criticism of it seems a bit unfair to me. It almost could come across as carping about things, or dismissing something out of hand, before even having the full picture. I’d like to think I’m not a stupid person, and also that I’m pretty well informed about the Swedish case overall. I have read the whole book and take it seriously. Much of what’s in the book I personally already knew from my own researching over the course of two years. Sim clearly has researched very well and his sources are diverse. He uses a lot of stuff uncovered by Flashback (which, of course, is closely associated with undermattan) and, though I don’t know for sure, I had assumed “Guy Sim” was a pseudonym for someone working directly FROM Sweden…

I hope this doesn’t come out sounding too harsh but I really think your research will suffer, lag behind, if you don’t acquaint yourself with all the NEW evidence revealed for the first time in Sim’s book. Even Flashback are finding some bits and pieces new to them in it. John Goss pointed out that you could order Sim’s book using cash in a local bookstore, if that’s the most suitable route for you.

you are indeed being too harsh and again quite condescending (you don’t sound sorry), given I helpfully contributed my take in brief form (11 Nov, 6:21 pm), based on my technical expertise, having looked at several documents. I then spent over an hour drafting my response to your disputing reply (over 1000 words quoted), and asked you sincerely some questions which would help me to have a better basis for me to then spend more time to compose a definitive reply so as to avoid arguments which I foresaw would come if I made another off-hand reply. Instead my scarce hours are further spent on your incautious response.

The reason I asked you to look for yourself at the behavior of email programs to see how they “present” i.e. display (in singular or plural), in a small scientific experiment of sorts, was to encourage you to think about the basis for the inferences being made and provide me with some data points to help answer you.

I had hoped I could by now make a very brief response and at most be asked politely to elaborate, and then to have others reciprocate making a comparable effort to answer my questions.

Kindly white-out for now whatever sentences may appear unfair and take me in good faith and try to respond constructively rather than argumentatively in answering my direct questions, and with more respect for me and my time, which is better spent on the little known “new” information I have in mind to contribute.

Oh dear, we really don’t see eye to eye, do we? You are asking me to do this:

“The reason I asked you to look for yourself at the behavior of email programs to see how they “present” i.e. display (in singular or plural), in a small scientific experiment of sorts, was to encourage you to think about the basis for the inferences being made and provide me with some data points to help answer you.”

but surely this is YOUR approach to research, not mine. I have already told you I do not have a scientific background. I am not making any inferences about email programs; I am simply reporting that Guy Sim believes there were two emails sent by Mats Gehlin to Claus Borgstrom.

Because I have reported that fact here, Flashback have picked it up and are, as we speak, busy researching this particular issue. I keep an eye on Flashback and will pick up the result of their endeavours (and I’ll report back here). This is more my style of collaborative research. It seems silly for me to attempt to ape a style of research for which I am not trained. I promise you the results would be amateur in the extreme if I did. So it seems to me to be a much better idea if I don’t go off on tangents trying to do stuff which is beyond me and I have no talent for. I am much better off sticking to what I know and following an approach which suits my skills and background: close reading and detailed textual analysis.

To be frank, my research suffers greatly from the effort it takes to deal with your snowballing exchanges, which start when I tactfully hint (from my knowledge and expertise and what I assumed you should have known) you may need to look deeper or qualify you assertions, as you have acknowledged and indeed at times taken on board. I continue to extend to you much patience and forgiveness, as you ask, so kindly show a little more appreciation.

Oh, apologies – I simply cut and paste the url for page 5 from my browser bar but I had refreshed the page before I did it. I thought that would simply link to “bottom of the page 5″, not to a specific comment as I wasn’t within or linked to a specific comment at the time.

I did say I wasn’t ‘tech’ or scientifically literate, didn’t I? Can you tell me please how to get the correct “bottom of page” (or top of page, doesn’t matter which) link, and I’ll give it to the moderator to substitute into my post.

“…which start when I tactfully hint (from my knowledge and expertise and what I assumed you should have known) you may need to look deeper or qualify you assertions”

but why tactfully hint? If you have knowledge about the case or expertise that others don’t have, why not just share that knowledge? Get it out there, tell others what you know which they don’t – that way everyone benefits, surely?

I think if you made even a small effort to look at your own inbox, you may well find that even your own email program uses the plural “Attachments:” even if there is one, and lists the different files if there is more than one. That alone counters the inferences Guy Sim is using to say the email contained two pdf files, unless he has forensics on the actual program used to print the emails of MG in the FOI documents to prove that.

Most books give a brief description of the Author near the front or on the cover. There are various Guy Sim persons on the web, so it would help to identify which one if any he is.

Provided that the FOI documents at undermattan are genuine, and given no other evidence not mentioned above by Guy Sims, I stand by my take, that MG sent CB one file PM.pdf in the email of Aug 26 9:41, which is the day before CB sent his letter to demand the case be re-examined. In adittion, the PM.pdf most likely refers to the terminolgy used for a Memo in Durtva, which is “PM”, whereas the witness statements etc. have different title words in Swedish. In addition, the documents show that MG sent the PM to CB in consultation with Eva Finne on Aug 26. As I indicated, I will need help with a few sentences of Swedish to state that more precisely, but I think it says Eva Finne phoned MG and asked him to send the PM to CB, which he did.

Let me know when flashback themselves figure this out, or find some solid contradictory evidence to what is in these documents, or someone wishes to help with precise Swedish translation, or engage in constructive discussion.

I tactfully hint, because that is what learned friends do to avoid hostile argument and to allow for the posibility of not being absolutely certain due to the existence of otherwise unknown facts or evidence.

For example, you made indirect references to the existence of what I elsewhere called “new hard facts which are rather secret to most” when you stated the need to amend a formal letter to Perklev to add “a sentence or two about the rape certificates”, and also “It could be altered very easily to include reference to the hospital rape certificate that one Flashbacker wants it to cover.”. I then hinted (note the key words “specific” and “beyond speculation”):

There is a big scandal about fake rape certificates being issued by that particular hospital. Rixstep has done an article on this issue. Should be easy enough to find if you check Rixstep’s “Assange” archive.

Yes, I am aware of every single fact you give in this post. Flashback too have already figured out all this. What is new – which Guy Sim supplies – is the detailed textual analysis behind his assertion that there must be two documents from which whoever did the alterations of Wilen’s statement must have worked, as set out in my 11 Nov 7.22pm post:

“All the “necessary changes” that incriminate Julian Assange are in the 19 percent of text that was blanked out in the censored 20/8. If some of them had been in the 81 percent of legible text, the manipulation would have been apparent to anyone comparing the censored 20/8 with 26/8. Only the censored 20/8 was available to the public. The success of this strategy is apparent in the fact that it has remained a well-kept secret for two years. The fact that the incriminating “necessary changes” are in the blanked out 21 percent cannot be accidental, they are too targeted.”

I find that persuasive. But then, I’ve read the whole book, so I have seen exactly how he demonstrates line by line the percentage of text altered, one document superimposed (using textual formatting) on top of the other, and what those alterations were. I’m persuaded by his argument, having reviewed it thoroughly for myself. What more can I say?

May I make a suggestion please, Snap? I think there’s maybe a problem with your approach of tactful hinting and I think I can illustrate what I mean by that with the material you reproduce above. You say: “I then hinted (note the key words “specific” and “beyond speculation”): Has something specific emerged on “the hospital rape certificate” beyond speculation?”

Now I’m not a mind-reader so, without the later explanation that the original question was in fact a hint, or the pointers contained in the brackets, the original question is waaaayyyyy too subtle for me. I just read it as ‘Oh look, another commenter on the blog is asking a straightforward question’, which I answer by pointing them to a website source I know has written in depth on that particular issue. Not meant to be condescending at all. Meant to be helpful. But, unfortunately, read as condescending. I’m upset that this happens so I think I should desist from trying to be helpful to other posters on this site – I’m obviously not good at it.

“When you make such references to documents, I cannot prove their non-existence, so the onus is on you to provide a specific reference etc.”

This bit I don’t understand at all. My original post about the letter to Anders Perklev, as far as I can recall, was not addressed to you but was a message to Flashback. I did not know the specifics of whatever additions Flashback wished to make about the hospital rape certificates, I had just read (on Flashback) that they were thinking of writing an open letter to Anders Perklev and felt it should also talk about the certificates. All I was doing was suggesting there was an easily alterable existing letter. Suggesting that to Flashback. What questions was I asking you about it? I don’t remember any so I don’t understand why this has upset you somehow.

Are you saying that the secret information you have that you want to share is about the rape certificate? Is that it? I’ve read the Daddy’s Sweden link again. The only new information on it – new to me, that is – is what he says about it being legally possible to compel a reluctant complainant. Is what you’re hinting at – the work you are doing on the “new hard facts which are rather secret to most” – anything to do with that? Doubtless you will not be thankful for it, but my two-penneth-worth about Sophie Wilen being compelled against her will with regard to a rape certificate is that I think it would’ve come out that she had been compelled in some way in the statements of her witness friends, as she spoke to the majority of those subsequent to her hospital visits, and there’s nothing to indicate it in those. I’ve done a very long review of Sophie Wilen’s “witnesses” statements at 11 Nov 3.14pm – I don’t know if any of that is helpful to you.

Look Snap, I’m clearly NOT the right person for you to be asking any questions. I seem not to understand them in the first place, and I only upset you with my responses. Please do not ask me any further questions.

Hi all. I caught sight of some of the exchanges here, and seeing some conflict decided to take a further peek. I’m not following the Assange legal case in detail, but all credit to everyone here for getting involved in the nitty-gritty.

Snap, you earlier asked me for advice on how to convey tone when making statements. Since you seem to be having some problem with that, I’ll offer some brief thoughts. I’m not speaking as a moderator here – just as an observer in a coffee-shop, listening to your public conversation!

From what I can tell, Arbed is a genuine and thoughtful interlocutor, with an readable, discursive style, a readiness to apologise, and an excellent ability to make amends for the inaccuracies of human communication.

On the other hand, I am sad to see you have been: volunteering other people for various kinds of work, patronising, over-sensitive, over-cautious and occasionally plain rude. Your excellent standard of English leads me to think that you are not just accidentally reaching for the wrong word, but I appreciate that there are other possible reasons why you genuinely find other people’s responses frustrating. Unfortunately, I think you have taken an initial incorrect view of Arbed, and this has spiralled, despite her repeated diplomacy and attempts at conciliation.

Shall I furnish some examples?

I am aware of more than you assume, which is mildly annoying, or hinting from considerable expertise for you to think clearly about what impressions you have made based on catchy stories.

Here you’ve taken offence where none was intended, blamed your conversational partner for your feelings of annoyance, and implied that whilst you have “considerable expertise” (arrogance), your exchange partner may need instruction in “thinking clearly” (patronising).

I’d really like and encourage others such as yourself to do likewise in writing what you know and further to demand the Press to perform their proper function in society.

Volunteering other people for work. Why not do it yourself?

Arbed, actually I was asking you to have the grace to place your response to one of my questions I asked in the other thread in place there as a conversation

Accusing ones conversational partner of gracelessness won’t help the conversation along – it is, again I am sorry to say it, rude and unnecessary. What does such a statement of exasperation achieve, other than offence?

that is also rather unwarranted that your two links placed in the most current thread on the site go directly to your over-reactionary and over-generalising criticism of me posted above.

More rudeness and substantial over-sensitivity.

To be frank, my research suffers greatly from the effort it takes to deal with your snowballing exchanges, which start when I tactfully hint

Same again.

Snap, your interest in this case is commendable, as is your demand for detail. But something is getting in the way, and obviously since I don’t know you I can’t say what it is. For what it’s worth, I think you should take up your own excellent ideas – such as making an internet-based timeline of events, or a summary of evidence from here and Flashback etc. If you can take a moment to analyse your style of interlocution too, I think that would be time well spent.

In line with your undertaking I (rather unnecessarily) explained to you the links at 4:45 pm, and there are signs of a moderator at work, so I am disappointed to see those links remain there unchanged at present in the most recent topic. Please see this gets corrected soon.

I could do with some non-judgemental, non-side taking, respectful open minded, inquiring mediation here with this very awkward situation here that has been now created by the unsolicited intervention of Jon the “non-moderator”, making very unhelpful remarks that are a very unfair denigration of me and my intentions in a way I am most unhappy to have left here on this board, and unhappy to have to take further hours of time I do not have to spare to clear up even as far as to make this statement, while I was trying to find time to make any sense from Arbed’s last post which misunderstands me again.

How can we sort this out, as I am already the one here who feels under attack after merely having posted my considered opinion on a couple of very limited points, stating them clearly as my take or how I personally read it, contributing my analysis and information, and stating I did not wish to be drawn into arguments and trying to draw a line under it with a further clearly specified opinion, on one very specific point.

Your dual role does not leave me the freedom to reply to you on an equal footing, so because of that I will make no comments on any of your statements, and would kindly request that Jon the moderator removes Jon the non-moderator’s post for the time being, and request you both leave me alone so I can get some rest from this most exhausting exchange.

Ideally if Clark was willing to engaage in a helpful manner that would be very much appreciated, but I am sadly aware of his resignation as a moderator. Otherwise who do you propose is in a position to mediate this most unjustified situation I am being cornered into.

Snap wrote: “If Eva Finne was on vacation (was she?), then how did she come to be called in to sort it out?”
I’m more or less aware of the courier and faxing on the Saturday. I was asking about the official procedural steps that lead to her being involved in the case at all.
– Did she intervene on her own authority? Or, did someone else call her back from holiday?”

Comment: Eva Finne must have been contacted on Saturday morning. The unanswered question is why Perklev took his initiative. Did he discuss this with the government or not?
Most of the Swedish government were gathered at a crayfish party (another one!)on Friday evening. The arrest in abstentio of Julian Assange must have been known there early Friday evening. It must have been a talking point. And, I assume, there must have been a discussion in the inner cabinet. The likelihood is that they were surprised and wanted to know what the hell was going on. Even if we assume that there was a secrete service operation involved (a speculation) it need not have been known even by the PM, especially if it was organised by a foreign secret service.

addition to previous comment: Anders Perklev contacted Mats Åhlund on Saturday morning, according to the same source as above. Thus Eva Finne was appointed on the Saturday and made a very quick and efficient job in the Wilen case, based on the original version of the interview with Sofia Wilen.

Have there been any more names added to those we know were at the crayfish party at Harpsund on that Friday evening (20 August 2010) when the arrest warrant was issued? I had heard that Carl Bildt was a confirmed guest and also the husband of the on-duty prosecutor (the chap who worked in Beatrice Ask’s office, forget his name now).

I am glad this page is still going. I’ve just finished reading Guy Sims’ book on ‘Julian Assange in Sweden’ and confess it is worth every penny, There is so much information, a lot of it new, and it very well demonstrates how Sweden has turned positive discrimination (in favour of feminists) into a fine art. One of the things that stuck out was the recent changes (2005) in Swedish rape law classification. I almost burst out laughing, but perhaps that is my insensitivity as a man, when I read that placing a finger inside a woman, without asking her, or without her asking him to do so (unasked is a bit ambiguous) first, amounts to rape.

“For example, a man inserting his finger into a woman’s vagina, unasked; this now qualified as rape with potentially a long prison sentence.”

It is not for me to question the peculiarities of law in a land in which I do not live but I do think this rather peculiar. What made me smile later was what Anna Ardin allegedly said in her police statement: “When asked Anna replied Assange must have known that it was for a condom . .” she was reaching. Despite the free discussion of sex that is apparent in Sweden Julian has got to be able to read Anna Ardin’s mind when she wants something. But if in the course of foreplay it reaches a stage where (hypothetically) Julian has a desire to insert a finger into her vagina he has to ask: “Excuse me, Anna, is it all right now for me to insert a finger into your vagina to comply with the 2005 changes in Swedish rape laws?” Or Anna, who cannot even tell him she is reaching for a condom, “Excuse me Julian the time has come for you to be able to insert a finger into my vagina”. Or am I misinterpreting? I notice these changes to the law were introduced on April 1 (April Fool’s Day here in England).

I have read a lot of books. Perhaps my own experience was originally based on the romance of novels. Anyway to my mind there seems to be a certain point, a mutual understanding if you like, between a man and a woman as to when their relationship has reached a certain stage. Otherwise the woman tells the man she does not want to go further. I have never come across any mention of this particular “excuse me” courtesy anywhere. Is this one of the reasons why Sweden’s ‘rape laws’ have become the laughing-stock of the world? Does a man have to ask his wife every time they make love if certain practices are permissible that they have been engaging in all their lives prior to 2005? My God! What have they done to human relationships?

Snap, please do not feel cornered. We are all adults here and opinionated–everybody makes their own judgment. Arbed is playing with a straight bat and, I believe you are too. Your style may at times be a little irksome but that is no big deal. In the spirit that 1+1=11 I think you could both still collaborate for the larger good, with a little more give and take, but it does take TIME and patience. Please be clear, i am not trying to be patronising and am saying what i am at the risk of butting in. Think of the price Assange is paying in pursuit of greater freedom and right action, and i don’t take my personal freedom for granted. Celebrate it and lighten up. Every relationship/dialogue is an opportunity to create harmony. I won’t live in conflict. If its not soluble, even with compassion, one walks away from it.

We all have different styles. There is something of a construct that people have that is considered ‘normal’, but the Universe presents immense variety. I live my life on 3 basic principles as Einstein elucidated: Truth, Goodness and Beauty. Please understand i am not sermonizing; merely, sharing.

Arbed wrote:
Have there been any more names added to those we know were at the crayfish party at Harpsund on that Friday evening (20 August 2010) when the arrest warrant was issued? I had heard that Carl Bildt was a confirmed guest and also the husband of the on-duty prosecutor (the chap who worked in Beatrice Ask’s office, forget his name now).

Answer:
The party is a highlight of the year, before work starts properly in the autumn. Most of the government would have been there. Fredrik Reinfeldt (PM), Carl Bildt (foreign minister), Beatrice Ask (“justice minister”), Sven Tolgfors (defense minister)were all there, as far as I understand it. And all the party leaders in the “Alliance government, Jan Björklund (liberal), Maud Olofsson (center party), Göran Hägglund (christian democrat). Most of the second in command in each ministry would have been there also. I have not heard that Per Kjellstrand, married to the on-duty prosecutor Maria, was there.

Two journalists, Niklas Svensson and his photographer received the tip about Assange’s arrest while at Harpsund. There has been some speculation that the tip might have come from someone at the party, perhaps even Carl Bildt. Bildt has always denied any american pressure on Sweden in this issue, perhaps because he does not need to be pressed at all.

That’s quite a list you’ve got there! Hmm, very true what you say about Carl Bildt. Though, personally, I’ve always felt the tip-off was in the other direction, ie that Svensson and co received the tip from the source “close to the investigation”/one of the women (most likely Ardin) and they passed it to the political players they were mixing with at the time they received it.

You wouldn’t happen to know what time of day these annual shindigs at Harpsund start, would you? Maria Kjellstrand issued the warrant for Assange’s arrest at precisely 5pm on Friday 20 August 2010. We know Linda Wassgren phoned Mats Gehlin in the Family Violence Unit, the station officer Johan Hallberg and a couple more (as yet unknown) people. Do we know anything about who Kjellstrand spoke to before (or shortly after) issuing the warrant? Might she have phoned her husband at all that afternoon? Regarding hubby Per being at the Harpsund party, I thought Flashback had found that out last year sometime and established that he was in fact there.

Ever since I first heard where Svensson was when he got the initial tip-off about the women’s visit to police I’ve always felt that there’s more to the Harpsund angle. Like there’s still a missing link in the puzzle chain and Harpsund somehow might just be it… I suppose it’s been firmly established that Karl Rove wasn’t even in Sweden that night, let alone swanking it up with his Bestest Pal Reinfeldt? Pity

The Harpsund event started before lunch on Friday. Seminar about the economic situation in the afternoon. Discussions about Pakistan. Press conference with plenty of journalists in the late afternoon. Swimming, sauna and leisure after that. Drinks and mingle at 19.30. Sit down dinner after 20.00 with crayfish, snaps and singing. Good mood in anticipation of an election victory in four weeks. In that atmosphere the news about Assange’s arrest must have been received by some of the key ministers before the mingle started.

To Arbed. As far as I know Karl Rove was not in Sweden when the case exploded, or the week before. But he was there earlier in the summer. This picture is from Almedalen, Gotland, the place for the most important political civil society gathering in Sweden every year. First or second week in July. Rove had a closed dinner with political friends there.

On the picture is Bill McCormac, Republican American living in Sweden, working on Prime PR, Karl Rove and Fredrik Andersson, member of the moderate party (Carl Bildt’s party) and head of Prime PR:s office in New York. If any of you know anything about Prime’s american and british links it would be of interest.

No, that’s not the right guy – wrong eye colour – or family (the McCormac spelling is correct). I’m not even sure that primesw.co.uk is part of the same Prime group we’re after. Here’s is McCormac’s biog page from Prime’s Swedish website (use Google translate):

John, I don’t know exactly which sources Mary uses to dig up the stuff she does but if you do know perhaps you could start with those sources? I’m aware Flashback does already have quite a bit on this Prime two-some; what I think they’re after is more on any connections via companies they are associated with, or have previously been associated with, in the UK or US.

Mary very kindly said “will do, but not today” as she’s heading off to the demo about the Gaza raids today, so if you’re not busy perhaps you can do it, or some of it, for her?

I’ve searched this site using Bill McCormac, Billy McCormac, and William McCormac to no avail. There is probably a US equivalent and I’ll try to find out what that is. I think to be a director in the UK you have to have an address here.

My concern is it might direct one back to the Swedish sites. Perhaps Mary can come up with something. Komodo is also good at getting this kind of information. If McCormac works for the CIA they have most likely scrubbed anything connected with his former life. He seems to have stock exchange knowledge. The easy way to pay him is for the CIA to use its insider knowledge and transfer a few shares from time to time. As you can see from the Correa blog post drug money is being used to try and depose the president of Equador.

Arbed, I’ve found a number of Swedish videos of McCormac talking (in Swedish) with a panel of five including a Wikileaks’ representative, but I guess you know about this and you can no doubt understand it, which I can’t.

As to his US roots I suspect he is a descendent of a Harvard educated family man who settled in California and was a scientist and NASA space expert called William Murray Mccormac (1920-1999). There is a family resemblance, perhaps a grandson.

Suzy Langsdale has already been given much in the way of facts about the Swedish investigation in feedback from Cambridge students – just in case her campaign was based on genuine ignorance about them. It seems she hasn’t bothered to educate herself and has simply decided that nowadays if anyone has a sexual allegation made against them they no longer have the right to be heard or the right to defend themselves. Presumption of innocence? Pah! Who needs that?

Extremely well-researched and informative book, available for download for less than $3. Best conpendium of facts about the Swedish investigation to date:

For Arbed and anyone interested. It appears that your Billy McCormac is the son of Billy Murray McCormac mentioned above. So his father must have been middle-aged when he fathered Billy (unless Willy is in his sixties). He has made two donations of $1000 to the Democratic National Committee Services Corporation in 2009 and this year. I can find no details of him having any directorships in the US or UK. His father worked on Nuclear weapons’ experiments in Europe and elsewhere. His name is Billy Murray McCormac II and there is very little about him anywhere under Billy McCormac or any other name. But it appears he is not short of money.

I have been extremely busy with work and travels and not been able to keep in touch with developments on this issue as i would have liked to. However I will be penning an article very soon for a very reputable international newspaper from a developing country on developments in the Assange case and would appreciate your input.

It won’t open for me either. Perhaps you should repaste your request in the latest thread and request Clark’s (or another one of the ‘techie’ chaps on the blog) help with it. He’s back commenting again.

The Flashback folk have unearthed potentially explosive news. English speakers will need to use Google translate on the links below, and likewise with the links within the Flashback posts.

Brief summary is that a 7 September 2010 raid in Sweden on a network of “elite” file-sharers – misleadingly described as co-ordinated by the Belgian authorities and as “nothing to do with Wikileaks” in the Swedish MSM at the time – was in fact a smokescreen for a CIA op to link two particular IP addresses: one was Bradley Manning’s aunt’s house, the other was to Wikileaks’ server at Swedish host at the time of Cablegate, PRQ.

PRQ, of course, is the company founded by Gottfrid Svartholm – @Anakata – also co-founder of The Pirate Bay and friend of Julian Assange, who is currently 11 weeks into detention in solitary confinement for various reasons:

– serving the one-year prison sentence he was given in absentia for his role in the Pirate Bay

– “suspicions” (ie not yet charges) allegedly relating to a hack of Logica, contractor to the Swedish tax authorities and Defence systems. These were slapped on him following the extremely dodgy (and possibly illegal) manoeuvres by the Swedish authorities to get him deported back to Sweden from Cambodia

– new “suspicions” (ie not yet charges) of “aggravated fraud” which the Swedish prosecutor refuses to go into any detail about. Very vague.

I can’t help feeling that the third item here is really the crux of everything, and that Svartholm’s detention in Stockholm is part of the bigger picture of getting Assange extradited to the US via Sweden to face the espionage indictment that’s currently under seal with the Grand Jury in Virginia. I wouldn’t be in the least surprised if Svartholm’s name is on one of the other sealed indictments discovered by accident by Birgitta Jonsdottir’s US lawyers, ie Svartholm is one of the “seven civilians” it’s been confirmed the Grand Jury is investigating. In this scenario, perhaps Svartholm’s pre-charge detention is simply a holding mechanism pending the successful extradition of Assange from the UK to Sweden, then they both get shipped off together to the US.

I wonder if one of our Flashback visitors could do an English translation of the Flashback posts and links above, to help get this important info out into the English-speaking blogosphere?

I’m trying to post the following comment to this article, without any luck so far. Wretched commenting feature is snaffled at the moment, or I’m being moderated/censored (though The Local claims comments are unmoderated):

@ Emerentia

No, I don’t understand what these Anonymous idiots thought they were doing. These hospitals have nothing to do with the Assange case. If it had been the Dandervd hospital or the Södersjukhuset hospital they hacked I could understand it, as there are genuine questions about the circumstances of Sophie Wilen’s visits to those. This extract from Guy Sim’s new book “Julian Assange in Sweden – what really happened” is talking about the alterations made to her witness statement before it was input to the police computer as the ‘official’ version six days after she made it:

“[It is impossible to detect whether these two paragraphs were changed, they were blocked out in the 20/8 version. The second paragraph especially is quite extraordinary. It means that after taking Assange to the train station and kissing him goodbye and asking him to phone her, she then went to the Södersjukhuset Hospital which has a ‘Reception for Raped Women,’ the brainchild of the former Social Democrat government, including the then Equality Ombudsman, Claes Borgström and his partner, the then Justice Minister, Thomas Bodström. This hospital is a long way from her home, she would need first to take a commuter train to Stockholm and then travel across Stockholm, as it is on the far side of that city. A journey of between one and two hours. On the other hand, it is very close to Anna Ardin’s apartment – just 900 metres (1,000 yards or 3,000 feet) – walking distance. The Danderyd hospital is also a long way from Sofia Wilén’s home, it is also in Stockholm. There was a perfectly good hospital three kilometres (two miles) from Sofia Wilén’s home, the Enköping Lasarett, it has a gynecology department but it does not have a ’Reception for Raped Women.’ A later prosecutor, Marianne Ny, was able to present the fact that Sofia Wilén had been to the ‘Reception for Raped Women’ at the Södersjukhuset Hospital as implying that she had been raped. Sofia subsequently told her friend Marie Thorn that she didn’t want to go there in the first place but was “steamrollered” into going there “by … others around her.”

There is also the question of why Wilen would choose to cut a piece out of a used condom (Yuck!) and take that with her to get it tested for HIV at the hospital instead of simply putting the whole condom into a plastic bag. That would make much more sense as it is more likely to allow a decent-sized semen sample for them to analyse. Also, the question of why she didn’t, in fact, give this piece of condom to the hospital but gave it to Anna Ardin instead. Page 38 of Guy Sim’s book:

“The piece of condom from Sofia Wilén is given the designation 2010-0201-BG20840-1, the only text not blanked out is “Produced.” The condom from Anna Ardin has the same designation except that the final digit is -2 instead of -1. The only text not blanked out is “… after enquiry by the police.” The piece of condom from Sofia Wilén was in fact produced by Anna Ardin, which means that Sofia Wilén must have given it to her. As detailed below, it is evident that Sofia Wilén must have been carrying this piece of condom around in case it helped establish whether Assange had HIV, because that was Sofia Wilén’s sole preoccupation; therefore she evidently had no intention of giving it to the police. The requisition assignment was ‘executed’ by Sara Wennerblom at 18.12 (6.12pm) on 21 August for both condoms.”

Then there is also the question of whether the fact that the forensic evidence from Sophie Wilen is a piece of used condom, instead of a whole used condom, has anything to do with these strange notes by policeman Mats Gehlin on the forensic report from SKL (page 21 of Sim’s book):

“No DNA was found on the condom from Complainant No. 2’s [Anna Ardin’s] residence. “On vaginal tops from Complainant No. 1 [Sofia Wilén] were found DNA from Complainant No. 1 [Sofia Wilén] and DNA from a man. On the piece of condom that had been found in Complainant No. 1’s apartment was found DNA from Complainant No. 1 and DNA from the same man as was found on the vaginal tops. “Complainant No. 1 [Sofia Wilén] had not noticed if any condom had been broken as it was dark in the room and when the suspect put the condom on it sounded as if he was pulling on a balloon. The piece of condom was found under the bed, under that part of the bed that the suspect lay on when he put the condom on.”

So, Sophie Wilen has apparently also experienced a ‘damaged condom’ incident – how curiously similar to the story Anna Ardin’s allegations detail… or so it seems she has at some point told the police (Gehlin’s notes on forensic report) – and she has taken this piece of condom found under her bed to a hospital to see if they will test it for Assange’s possible HIV status. But she then decided not to hand it in to the hospital but instead give it to Anna Ardin, who in turn gives it to the police after she [Ardin] has made her own telephone statement a day after helping Wilen to make hers at the police station. But Wilen’s statement (well, the extensively altered ‘official’ version input to the police computer six days later) makes no mention at all of Wilen’s ‘damaged condom’ experience. Hmmm…

Please folks, write and say “cracking” to refer to breaking computer security; hackers are programmers, and we shouldn’t assist the propaganda campaign. It is true that a good hacker can also crack, but “locksmith” shouldn’t come to mean “safe cracker”.

Something is puzzling me. It is Billy McCormac’s life before leaving the US. I cannot find a date of birth, school record, medical record. There is no reference to his age in anything written about him (Swedish or English) as far as I’m able to ascertain. Either he has something to hide – or some other interested party has something to hide.

For the tweet expert of Sweden to have no past is curious. There could be a perfectly rational explanation. But the fact that his father was a nuclear physicist exploding nuclear weapons in the air is worrying. Perhaps that is the cause of his reticence with personal history . . . shame! Don’t think so though.

I can’t think of a way of emailing him to get this information. Any ideas anyone?

I see Mr Rudling did not answer Duqu’s questions. How could he after being put to shame by Fia’s post.

I posted the Timbro question on Flashback.

This is what I think is the “hidden agenda” of the casehttp://wikispooks.com/wiki/Operation_Want
The name derives from the Sweden-related content of the vast collection of leaked US diplomatic cables published by WikiLeaks – a notable characteristic of many of the relevant cables being reducible to the general form: “The US Wants… – Sweden Wants…”.
The pdf is a timeline.
Sadly the person making this has not kept gathering data.

Wtfuk, yes, Fia’s post was very revealing. I like to think my outing of him posting as Anonymouse on the “CIA Plot Against Correa Funded by Drug Money” post made a small contribution too. Especially since Flashbackers discovered him doing the same thing on their site.

Thanks for that post on Karl Rove. Using links on that I discovered the following which relates to his assumed bi-sexuality, which if true, makes Sweden an ideal country in which to practice his other sexual interests. Are Flashback users aware of this? He allegedly had a bisexual affair just before his second marriage in June this year.

Wtfuk, Arbed, of course I could be wrong about Anonymouse. However, his/her comments I believe stopped the same time as Göran Rudling stopped commenting.

I have put together a file on Billy McCormac junior (it contains mainly links to websites). Given more time I might be able to put together some kind of profile. There is little on his life before he arrived in Sweden. His father was a Freemason and it generally follows that sons of masons (Lewises) become masons themselves.

Snap, sorry to have kept you waiting so long, especially as I still don’t really know what to suggest. Have you ever tried looking through someone else’s conversation, all fragmented and sometimes not quite in sequence, with comments to other contributors interspersed? It can be very confusing. Sorry, there is so much material here with which I am unfamiliar…

I see that you haven’t submitted any comments for a while. I don’t think that Jon’s criticisms meant that you had to stop contributing; I doubt that Jon is about to start deleting or editing your comments. I suggest that you try to ignore whatever you were upset about and just carry on. I can’t really help with hurt feelings or short patience, recently having thoroughly fucked up on similar matters myself.

What is your objective? Are you just trying to understand the Assange case for yourself, or are you trying to contribute to the public analysis of events?

No one else is obliged to research in accordance with your instructions. However, if their analysis seems logically deficient to you, you have every right to point out the errors as you see them. If you think that Arbed places too much trust in Sim’s book, it is up to you to read the book and raise your objections.

My belief is that all contributors should just debate the evidence, rather than speculating about the roles or intentions of other contributors. As soon as such “second order” interpretation is invoked, things get very messy very quickly.

If it is any help, my screen-name by my avatar links to a page with some contact details for me. If anyone wishes to exchange documents, attachments etc., both parties should e-mail me. Please use the second address because it’s shorter and easier to reply from.

Jon or Clark, I think Arbed’s post of 22 Nov, 2012 – 1:17 pm belongs as much on the thread below as on this thread since it relates to Gottfrid Svartholm the Pirate Bay founder. But this excellent and important post by Craig Murray, which unfortunately engendered less than 100 comments, is now closed.

Wtfuk, the point I was making about Karl Rove had nothing to do with his bisexuality. That’s his concern. What was wrong with it was him embarking on a homosexual relationship with Ali Akbar the same month that he got married for a second time.

“In June 2012, Karl Rove married Karen Johnson, a 45-year-old GOP lobbyist, in Austin, Texas. The couple dated for several years before getting married. The newlyweds flew to Naples on Steve Wynn’s private jet.”

He then made sweeping condemnations on Simpson, Bauer, and Siegelman on “On the Record” because he thought (wrongly) that they intended to “out” him. So you see why this is important?

It is not how many times he marries that is the problem with Karl Rove (politically an ambassador for marriage) but it is becoming apparent to me, as it must have been to many Americans for some time, that he is the fixer behind George W. Bush’s sham election ‘success’. That was the ‘success’ that took us into war on a false premise.

Yes, it seems Espressen are trying to link the suspension of AoS’s twitter account to the story detailed in my 23 Nov 12.25 post. Both whether Anonymous were in fact responsible for the original ‘hack’ of hospital records and now Espressen’s attempts to pin the blame for it on AoS seem a bit suspect to me.

Did you see this latest news about judges at the Swedish SVEA Appeal Court writing up a ‘guilty’ judgment and distributing it to the court’s lay judges before the court hearing even took place?

There’s a direct connection here to the Assange case. The Svea Court President Fredrik Wersäll quoted here is the guy who upheld Marianne Ny’s Swedish arrest warrant for Assange on 24 November 2010, which enabled her to write out the EAW.

Interesting that it’s this SVEA court judgment that the UK Supreme Court relied on as the independent and impartial judicial oversight required in an EAW issuing state when they heard Assange’s appeal over whether Marianne Ny should be considered a proper ‘judicial authority’ for the purposes of issuing EAWs.

Thanks. I will have a look at the SVEA appeal when I get back from walking the dogs. The story is probably similar to this.

A book is due to be released next week by Andrew Kreig. It is called Presidential Puppetry (short title) and has a quite a lot about Karl Rove’s dirty tricks. You can download a pre-election version for less than £5.00. I’ve been reading this and it is stunning. A former Democratic secretary of state and attorney general, Don Siegelman, is in prison due to Rove’s dirty tricks but they go much deeper than that. As with your story the judge was specially chosen. It stinks. At least one of you in Sweden should buy a copy because that’s what’s coming your way.

Arbed, I’ve just read the article and left a comment. How long it will be there I don’t know. It relates to the judge who presided in the Assange extradition appeal case,

“Justice Nicholas Phillips, who retired at the end of September to take up a post in Qatar for something I suspect more than £300,000 a year. But this was not before he had presided over Julian Assange’s extradition appeal, for trumped-up charges of rape. Assange lost but the decision was not made in the Supreme Court so much as in Whitehall, the gentlemen’s clubs and the upper echelons of government. Anybody who thinks otherwise is a blatant fool.”

Kreig’s book, ‘Presidential Puppetry’, linked in my previous comment, shows that the United States is probably even worse.

Jemand, your first link at 5.56 am is like the Anna Ardin case without US involvement. Your second at 7.55 am shows the Barbados police tortured an innocent man to get a confession and are not looking for anyone else. It makes me ask is a policeman the rapist?

I’ve blogged about the Swedish Ecuadorian Embassy’s letter to the Swedish government offering for the prosecution service to interview Julian Assange in their embassy in London. I have reproduced Rixstep’s copy of this very respectful letter.

Does anyone here know anything of a Guy J. Sims that is selling his e-book in this case ?
I can only find a 69 year old guy in Texas that never has written a book before.
The data taken in this book is from Flashback and NNN (Al Burke).
Whatever the “service” Guy J. Sims wanted to give the english speaking community, there are already free translates on sites like NNN.se etc, so its clearly that someone just wanted to gain money on Assange´s dilemma.

Duqu, I don’t think Guy Sims is trying to make a lot of money. He would have charged much more if he was. I get the impression he is Swedish (or English). Translation is expensive and time consuming. I was thankful for his book. He does explain that this information was already available in Swedish. I have found it a useful handbook for checking facts but to my mind its biggest service is to those who have no idea about what happened in Sweden. Nobody in the manstream media is allowed to mention the names of Irmeli Krans, Anna Ardin or Sophia Wilen. I just wish more people were coughing up three dollars to pay for it, and more importantly, to read it. Another thing is we don’t know whether he is donating the proceeds, say to Wikileaks. I assume Guy Sims is a nom-de-plume but have no idea of the identity of the author. If I did I would point out a few minor typos to improve it.

Well, both NNN.se and Rixstep.com are in English, and Rixstep was on since day one, while NNN showed up around 1 1/2 year later. Of course I understand your situation as non swedish speaking people, maybe both NNN and Rixstep had a poor public relations to reach out, but as most of the people today use google, the stuff that Guy writes about is already mentioned in the other 2 existing english sites, and also this Guy popped up in september this year, just 2 months ago, that whats make it odd. I just saw that this thread will be closed on dec 10, so whats are your plans then to communicate ?

If anyone doubts there is a really high-level political push to get Assange extradited to the US via Sweden, well take a look at this:

Written by BBC journalist Martin Bentham (and God knows the BBC isn’t very happy with Assange after the embarrassment he’s caused them this week) and appearing in London’s Evening Standard and headlined “Top EU official tells Julian Assange: ‘Just go to Sweden and answer the charges'”:

Swedish politician Cecilia Malmstrom claims to know very little about the Swedish sex crimes allegations – she simply can’t see why the US would extradite for sex crime allegations: “I don’t believe for a minute that’s why he would go to the US,”

Is she really trying to play that stupid? Nobody, but nobody, has ever thought that the US would attempt to extradite Assange for sex crimes.

But she’s not that dumb at all. This is both clever and nasty.

Here’s a Congressional C-Span video showing Cecilia Malmstrom sitting at the same table as US Attorney-General Eric Holder as he confirms they’ve had “informal talks about Wikileaks” and their supposed threat to “US National Security” at a 9 December 2010 US/EU conference about cyber-security and cyber-crime:

On 9 December 2010 US Attorney-General Eric Holder and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano met with their European counterparts Viviane Reding, Principal Vice-President of the European Union, EU Council Interior Minister Annemie Turtleboom and Justice Minister Steefan de Clerck, and Cecilia Malmstrom, a Swedish politician currently serving as European Commissioner for Home Affairs to discuss US-EU cyber-security and cyber-crime partnerships. Eric Holder stated:

“We had, I think, informal conversations about the WikiLeaks matter and the concerns that it has raised in the minds of all of us. The hope here in the United States is that the investigation that we are conducting will allow us to hold the people responsible accountable” and “I think that the release of this information has put at risk American National Security, and whatever is to come… will be consistent with the concerns that I have expressed.”

In fact, Cecilia Malmstrom and Eric Holder co-authored an article only yesterday. How chummy…

I doubt such close and friendly relations between an EU Interior Minister and the US Attorney-General only yesterday are entirely unrelated to the former’s insistence in today’s Evening Standard that Assange MUST go to Swedish to face the (non-existant) charges…

Following on from my previous post, and to further dispel any lingering doubt about Ms Malmstrom’s motives, the date of the conference at which her own “informal conversations” about Wikileaks with the US Attorney-General are confirmed – 9 December 2010 – is only one day after the Independent newspaper confirmed on 8 December 2010:

“Informal discussions have already taken place between US and Swedish officials over the possibility of the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange being delivered into American custody, according to diplomatic sources”

Given her own involvement in similar US/EU talks only one day later and her position in Swedish politics, if Cecilia Malmstrom is now claiming to have no knowledge of high-level diplomatic discussions about “delivering Assange into US custody” – and that’s precisely what she is doing in the above Evening Standard piece – then she’s lying through her teeth.

Is there anything we can do to call her out on this? Open letter perhaps? Or anyone able to publicise Malmstrom’s duplicity in Swedish media or blogs?